Personal Statement: Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, with permission, I should like to make a personal Statement. Last Thursday, I answered a question from my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours about proceedings in Parliament in which he had mentioned someone's name. In my answer, I said that,
	"those proceedings were not even broadcast on the BBC Parliament channel".—[Official Report, 26/10/06; col. 1279.]
	That was not correct. The BBC Parliament channel did in fact broadcast those proceedings without any editing, both live on the internet and on television the following day. The name was later edited out whenthe proceedings were broadcast on "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament". I give my unreserved apology for having misled the House in that way.

Prisons: Pentonville

asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they intend to take in response to the report by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons on Pentonville prison, dated 28 September.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as with all of HMCIP's establishment reports, an action plan will be produced within two months of publication. It will respond in detail to each recommendation. Her Majesty's Government are grateful to the chief inspector for her insightful report on Pentonville, which is undoubtedly an establishment under pressure. The Prison Service has acted to relieve some of this pressure by reducing Pentonville's operational capacity by more than 100.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, but does she agree with me that the chief inspector's report shows that Pentonville is a prison in crisis? Is the Minister aware that the chief inspector says not just that Pentonville is affected but that all our local prisons are overcrowded and pressurised? Since one-third of our 80,000 prisoners are held in local prisons, can the Minister tell the House how the Government plan to respond to the crisis that affects not just Pentonville, but all local prisons?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would be incorrect to describe Pentonville as being in crisis, although it is undeniable that it has significant difficulties. It is one of the busiest prisons in London, receiving between 90 and 100 prisoners per day. There is a very targeted action plan for Pentonville, and a further action plan will be produced one year after publication of the report. Appropriate plans are in place for all local prisons, both to manage the pressures that they are experiencing and to keep prisoners safe.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the chief inspector found that prisoners spent an average of five hours per day out of their cells, while the prison record showed eight hours. This is not the first time that the chief inspector has found such a discrepancy between prison records and reality. What action are the Government taking to ensure that their information on prison regimes is more reliable?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have taken steps to reinforce the management structure in Pentonville. There are now three new governor posts there; the action plan involves rigorously looking at all the issues that have been highlighted by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector; and a progressive action plan will be in place there between now and December.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although it is true that quite a lot of prisons are overcrowded, certain open prisons are not and there are no suitable prisoners to transfer into them?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the supply and nature of our prisons is an issue. Noble Lords will know that proper use has been made of all available space, and I assure them that the matter has been given anxious consideration by all those responsible for it in the Home Office.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I know that the Minister and the Government are committed to the decency agenda, but will she consider the pressures on the Prison Service, which, realistically, will continue for quite a long time, even if new places are made available and other forms of punishment are used more frequently? Does she agree that there is a real need for the further training of officers when they are going to be working under pressures of that kind? Conflict and anger management, for example, would have assisted in some of the things that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector discovered.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the training of officers is critical. We are now able to engage prisoners more in activities, and the benefits of that are clear. We are also taking steps to ensure that officers receive the appropriate training to enable them to look after people in prison in a more progressive way.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—

Lord Elton: My Lords—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the chief inspector's devastating report stated that Pentonville was dirty and infested with vermin, that too many prisoners lacked pillows and toothbrushes and that, on one occasion, the prison even ran out of food. Were the Government aware of those problems before the chief inspector reported on them or only afterwards; and what action has been taken to deal with them?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government were aware that there were management difficulties. For that reason, the governor has been changed and three new governor posts created. Additional funding has been provided for the prison to bring about physical improvements, including the refurbishment of the visits complex and the staff mess and artwork for prisoner accommodation areas. Those areas are being worked on energetically. We inside the Prison Service made the assessment that Pentonville was not doing well enough and that change was absolutely fundamental.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, year after year, we have report after report of failing local prisons. Sometimes that is followed by short-term improvement, but there is never consistent long-term improvement, with the lessons learnt being applied everywhere. Does the Minister not accept that thisis a fundamental failure of the Prison Service management and management structure and that, until and unless someone is responsible and accountable for all local prisons to see that the lessons are applied, such unavoidable reports will continue to follow year after year?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, lessons are being learnt. The way in which the area managers are now planning the work enables us to learn from other situations and develop better systems of working. That will be reinforced even more when the National Offender Management Service is well embedded.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I declare an interest as probably the only person in this place who has worked in Pentonville for six years as a member of the board of visitors. May I ask two questions? First, what proportion of the prisoners there nowadays are remand prisoners, and does that not complicate the authority and working of the prison? Secondly, when I was working there, the main trouble was lack of lavatories and showers. Has that situation been improved?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right: one of the problems that Pentonville faces is the number of prisoners on remand. Approximately 65 per cent of the prison population is on remand. As the noble Baronesswill know, that brings about a high turnover and an inability sometimes to establish prisoners on education programmes, with problems inherent in that. Those issues are being addressed. We are looking at relieving the pressure on Pentonville and sharing its allocation with other local prisons. We have a detailed action plan for better addressing the problems at Pentonville and learning from our experiences elsewhere, which has worked.

Natural England

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What budget cuts are proposed for Natural England, which was launched on 10 October.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, as part of Defra's recent budget reduction exercise, the 2006-07 budgets for the founding bodies of Natural England, which are English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service, were cut by £14 million, £12.9 million of which falls to Natural England. We hope to make an announcement on the 2007-08 budget in the next few weeks.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. As usual, he was disarming in his candour. However, the candour cannot conceal the crisis that has overwhelmed Defra. What jobs will be lost in the light of the cuts and what of Natural England's promised programme will be shelved or reduced?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the technical adjustment to this year's budget is approximately £200 million. Our overall spend is £3.7 billion. I do not diminish the significance of £200 million—noble Lords should not misunderstand me—but it is a very small part of our overall budget. Within that, the adjustments to each of the bodies affected are quite small.
	No part of Natural England's programme will be affected. Some areas will proceed a little more slowly than others. Its start-up money has not been affected. It is important for a new organisation to be able to start up effectively—it was launched earlier this month. Its core budget is £170 million. When other funding streams for which it is responsible are factored in, that rises to some £225 million. It has overall responsibility for more than £400 million when one adds in the EU agrimoney schemes. I realise that that is not core funding, but Natural Englandcan comfortably cope this year at the start-up. I understand that no one will be dismissed from their job as a result of the cuts to which the Question refers.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, as I understand it, Natural England's major function is to enhance the environment. Is this not a crazy time to be contemplating a cut in the budget, especially when the whole budget is petty cash in public expenditure terms? Will my noble friend reconsider the cut?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I would probably have difficulty explaining to anybody that £200 million is petty cash, but it is petty cash in terms of our overall budget of £3.7 billion. It is a small part of the money. We have a satisfactory arrangement for readjusting Natural England's budget, and we do not envisage any of its major schemes being affected. Some will probably start a little later than others—it had a spending moratorium in the period before it was launched. I understand that the moratorium was lifted on the launch day of 11 October.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, despite those answers, the Minister said categorically on 16 October that the budgets for flood defences would not be cut and that it would be possible to proceed with the EU water framework directive. Can he confirm that that is still the case, or will there not inevitably be some long-term cuts?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that Answer was about the spending of the Environment Agency. I recall that I was asked specifically about flood defence work. That is not affected by this budget adjustment.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, although the Minister said that the cut was small beer, does he acceptthat it would have been crucial to many areas of Natural England's work? Does he not regret the announcement of a £12 million budget cut on theday of the launch? That is hardly good PR. Isthe £200 million cut due to overspend or underspend in Defra? Various views on what caused it have been put around.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is both. The£200 million is made up of approximately £40 million of work for various agencies that was delayed last year and brought into this year, as that helped to meet last year's pressures relating to TB compensation and the final cost of foot and mouth disease; £55 million of work that was delayed last year and moved into this year to cope with a reduction in end-of-year funding arrangements; and £65 million of surplus capital charges that turned out to be no longer available under new rules. Some £23 million related to the RPA's running costs, and there was £10 million extra emergency preparedness for avian influenza. That is how the £200 million is made up; there is no secret about it. Some was underspend, some was overspend, and some was expenditure delayed last year and brought into this year.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that British Waterways has announced that about 180 of its staff were made redundant? Can he say what short-term impact that is likely to have on British Waterways' key role in urban regeneration?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I probably need a bit more advice on British Waterways, because Natural England does not deal with it. British Waterways is a trading body. It is true that it has had a cut, but, again, it is a fairly small percentage of its income. Some people might say that the cut is not the reason why it has had to make the redundancies, but I do not know. I would have to take further advice on that.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, was the scale of the forthcoming cuts inherent in the Question known to the Government when the Bill setting up the new agency was going through the House?

Lord Rooker: Certainly not, my Lords. The reality is that a team of Ministers went into Defra at the time of the reshuffle in May, and at the end of June it was drawn to our attention that there was a hole in the budget. We are trying to deal with it as best as we can.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain who is responsible for what I can only describe as cock-ups in the accountancy in Defra, and are their heads going to roll?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with respect, I do not think that that is a fair way of putting it. I have explained how the pressures behind the £200 million have come about. The fact that they came to light and were put to Ministers only at the end of June, to be dealt with this year, makes it more difficult. People have expectations. The budget was fixed at least at the last CSR and would therefore have been known last autumn. It certainly was not known when the legislation for Natural England was going through. I have explained that each amount is justifiable, and we cannot ignore them. We have to deal with this as best as we can, as we have tried to do in the department's overall budget and spending of nearly £4 billion.

Defra: Budget

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What cuts the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has had to make withinthe department as a result of deficits incurred bythe Rural Payments Agency arising from thesingle farm payments information technology programme.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Rural Payments Agency business change programme did not lead to deficits that required cuts within Defra.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I may be wrong, but in his original Answer to the previous Question I thought I heard the Minister refer to cuts in the Rural Payments Agency. Will the noble Lord explain the further £200 million cuts in the Defra budget this year? Many of us feel that that is very much related to the massive overspend in the Rural Payments Agency and its problems with the single farm payments scheme. Surely, the shortfall should have come from the contingency fund and not from slashing vet services at a time when we must be concerned about bird flu. There are also problems in the Environment Agency, and we have just heard about the cuts in Natural England.

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords. So that there is no confusion, the Rural Payments Agency business change programme did not lead to these adjustments. The £23 million comes in elsewhere. In fact, the Rural Payments Agency has had additional funds made available to it to cope with the difficulties that have arisen over single farm payments. I could give the House a lecture—it would not thank me for it—about the resource elements and the capital elements. The fact is that the figures stack up. Of the £200 million, only about £23 million—about 11 per cent—is the responsibility of the RPA, but that is not the cause of the deficit in relation to the change programme because the Rural Payments Agency had extra funds to deliver that. It is true that there are some difficulties, but one cannot blame the single farm payments or the Rural Payments Agency, in the way that has been done in the media, for the £200 million adjustment.

Lord Carter: My Lords, when does the Minister expect the single payments scheme to be running properly so that the farmers are paid correctly and on time?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I say to my noble friend, as I have said before, our expectation is to get the system running adequately. With the changes that need to be made to it, it will be 2008 beforehand, and we need to go through the 2006 and 2007 payment years before we get there. In other words, as the chief executive said, supported by Ministers, it will be at least a couple of years before it is up and running in a stable way.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that people applyingfor entry- and higher-level payments under the environmental schemes will not lose out as a result of the deficits in the Rural Payments Agency?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have no reason to believe that they will, although those schemes have a degree of flexibility. It is not easy for everyone to get into them because of the points system and the red tape, but it is not as a result of the adjustment that we have had to make.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept the finding of the National Audit Office that there were no checks, no matrixes and no proper management in the arrangements for bringing inthe single farm payment? I will give him some examples: the Accenture contract was estimated in November 2003 as being £27.5 million but turned out in March 2006 to be £50 million; the land register was estimated at £6.8 million but eventually turnedout to be £16.1 million; and the customer communications contract was originally estimated in 2003 at £1.2 million and turned out to be £9.8 million. Did the department not realise that it would have some customer inquiries due to those major changes?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is not a happy tale. Anyone who wants further and better particulars can go and sit in the gallery of the Public Accounts Committee of the other place this afternoon, because it will be taking evidence on the report that it published some 10 days ago. There have been difficulties with the planning. I am concentrating on the present and the future. Plenty of other people are looking at what happened in the past. We have to try to learn the lessons from the past, which is why the system cannot be turned out overnight. At least a year was lost—between November 2003 and November 2004—through gaps in the planning and implementation of the arrangements, but the same start date was kept to, which probably explains something about what happened.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, with reference to the sad saga, the Minister has today confirmed that there were £200 million in cuts which he described in terms of segments, but if I recall rightly, the Treasury imposed cuts in the previous financial year. Will he remind the House of the size of those cuts, notwithstanding the fact that some will run into the new financial year? Will he also say to what extentthe EU commission intends to levy fines on us for the shambles in the Rural Payments Agency?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer to the latter question will have to wait for at least a couple of years before we have closed down the accounts for this year. It will take time. I know nothing about the cuts for last year, if that is the word that was used. The fact of the matter is that this is in-year a technical adjustment to the budget. It is unusual, but we have to do it.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend in a position to assure the House that there is no truth in the rumour of a £3 million cut in the veterinary service? Does he agree that there would be deep concern were such a cut to be put into effect, as it would cause many people to doubt the capacity of the veterinary service to deal with future outbreaks of diseases such as foot and mouth disease?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for mynoble friend's question on the ground that there have been some myths abroad about the so-called cut of£3 million to the State Veterinary Service. There has been no £3 million cut to the State Veterinary Service this year. In fact, there has been no cut to the State Veterinary Service this year. The overall budget for the SVS remains the same after a switch of funding where money was switched around from the capital budget, which was increased by £3 million to replace resource money. The budget for the State Veterinary Service has been increased this year by £16 million, and another £3 million will be made available for avian influenza preparedness, giving a net increase of £19 million for 2006-07, the year we are in at the moment. There has been no £3 million cut. It is true that there was a cut in the resource area, but that was money swapped from capital. It did not lose any money. The State Veterinary Service got the same amount of money as was in the original budget, so talk about a £3 million cut is not correct.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, did any of the overspent money go to farmers?

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords.

Iraq: UK Military Accommodation

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they have taken since 25 July to introduce more extensive air-conditioning into the living and working accommodation of the United Kingdom Armed Forces in Iraq.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, since 25 July 2006, three camps, each accommodating500 personnel, have been commissioned with air-conditioning. Basra Palace has had air-conditioning installed. Two camps at the Shatt al-Arab Hotel have been fitted with 68 stand-alone units, and some areas have had area units installed. Installation of air-conditioning in all fixed living accommodation will be completed before the onset of hot weather next year.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the Minister paints a rosy picture, but why are detainers in the Intelligence Corps still interrogating suspects in rooms without air-conditioning? Computers are continually breaking down because of the heat, losing vital information. Why, after three years, are cooks and kitchen staff still working in temperatures in excess of 60 degrees centigrade? That is 140 degrees Fahrenheit and is totally unacceptable.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am not aware of the situation to which the noble Lord referred concerning interview rooms. I will look into it and will write to him with an answer.
	With regard to cooks and kitchen staff, the noble Lord is right about the operating conditions that can exist in the hot temperatures in theatre in Iraq. From the operational testing that we did going back to 2002, we have learnt the importance of introducing air-conditioning to our tented accommodation. We take on board the point that he makes about cooks and kitchen staff. There has been no incidence of that being highlighted by our personnel themselves, but it is something that we take very seriously. We are working on that area.

Lord Garden: My Lords, can the Minister confirm the reports in the newspapers today that an evacuation is in progress down to skeleton staffing of the British Consulate in Basra Palace? If those reports are true, will he ask his colleagues in the Foreign Office whether, having spent £14 million of public money on the consulate, we might make those facilities available to the troops, where they need them?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, of course we look at all opportunities to use our accommodation facilities most effectively and discuss those matters with our colleagues across government. Some of the British civilian presence in Basra is moving temporarily from the Basra Palace compound. That decision has been reached because of the increased threat from mortar and rocket attacks on the compound. The consul-general, the senior diplomatic representative, and core staff will remain in the palace.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that the Armed Forces in Iraq now have flushing lavatories available to them in their living and working accommodation?

Lord Drayson: Yes, my Lords, I am happy to answer my noble friend, having visited the accommodation in Iraq. I can confirm that our troops have such facilities.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the electricity supply is now stable enough—we have all heard that it was very erratic—to operate those air-conditioning units?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Countess is correct to ask about the stability of power supplies. There has been a considerable improvement in the region around Basra. A considerable number of the population now have a stable power supply operating for 24 hours. However, it is correct to say that such power supply as is produced must be improved. The work being done through reconstruction has made a considerable impact in that area over the past year.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the situation was getting worse in Basra, which is why they are evacuating some of the consulate staff. When does he think that it will get any better?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, as I have said to the House in the past, the situation in Basra is changing—some areas in the city are improving. We have seen the progress made with Operation Sinbad, which is going from area to area in Basra. The process of reconstruction and improved security is having a real effect. The feedback that we have had on the ground is that it is working. None the less, there are some areas where the security situation has deteriorated. The situation relating to Basra Palace, which I have described, is one such—mortar rounds have come into theatre in that compound—and we have to respond to that.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can generators be provided to take care of power failures?

Lord Drayson: Yes, my Lords, generators are provided to deal with power failures. Such generators are provided for our service people on operations. Generators are used widely in the area within Basra, but are not able to cope totally with the loss of mains power supply.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, if the insurgents are able to mortar the Basra Palace complex, does that not indicate that we have not got enough troops to task?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, it indicates that we have work to do to improve the security situation in Basra. We have been clear on that for some time. We have to recognise that the key is the development of the Iraqi security forces, and we are realistic about what has been achieved. We are seeing encouraging evidence of the capability of the Iraqi security forces, but we need to be realistic about situations as we find them, such as that relating to Basra Palace today.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, to get back to the original Question, is the noble Lord able to put the issue into context by telling us approximately what proportion of the troops' tented accommodation is not air-conditioned?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful for that question. A small proportion is not available with air-conditioning. The issue of air-conditioning has been recognised for some years; it goes back to 2002. The new improved tented accommodation that we have provided—the fixed accommodation—has air-conditioning in it, but there are some units that do not have it. Our programme is to make sure that all units have air-conditioning by next summer.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have two brief statements to make. The first is about a Statement that will, with the leave of the House, be repeated later today—it is on climate change. It will be delivered by my noble friend Lord Rooker, and we shall take it at a convenient time after 6.45 pm.
	My second point concerns the Education and Inspections Bill. As ever on these procedural matters, I am very diffident in my advice to the House. I simply point out that this afternoon on Third Reading, we shall be debating a number of issues which have already been debated in Committee and at Report, occasionally at some length—that is in no sense a criticism; let me get my defence in. I am sure the House will not mind me reminding it of the rules in the Companion, which say that arguments that have been deployed at length in earlier stages of a Bill should not be redeployed at length during later stages of the Bill.

England Rural Development Programme (Closure of Project-Based Schemes) Regulations 2006

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the following Motion be referred to a Grand Committee:
	The Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer—To move, That the Grand Committee do consider the England Rural Development Programme (Closure of Project-Based Schemes) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/2298) [45th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Business)

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:
	Line 41, leave out paragraph (7) and insert—
	"(7) These Standing Orders shall apply to the bill in the next session only in regard to any stage through which the bill has not passed in the current session."—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education and Inspections Bill

Read a third time.
	Clause 1 [Duties in relation to high standards and the fulfilment of potential]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 5, after "Duty" insert "to secure the right to a suitable education appropriate to the child's needs"

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 2 in the same group. Both amendments are also tabled in the names of my noble friend Lady Sharp and the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
	My colleagues and I have brought back these amendments because, despite helpful meetings with the Bill team, we have not been satisfied that there is any good reason why the local authority's duty to secure the child's right to an education should not be put in the Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its report on the Bill, made clear its wish that the child's right as enshrined in the UN convention be placed in the Bill. The question is how to do it.
	The Government's lawyers say that the right is enshrined elsewhere in law, under four pillars, and that if we restate it in the Bill the whole edifice will come tumbling down. However, a different view was taken in Scotland and the world has not come to an end. In the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc. Act 2000, the Scottish Parliament provided in Section 1, entitled "Right of child to school education":
	"It shall be the right of every child of school age to be provided with school education by, or by virtue of arrangements made, or entered into, by, an education authority".
	Section 2, entitled "Duty of education authorityin providing school education", provides in subsection (1):
	"Where school education is provided to a child or young person by, or by virtue of arrangements made, or entered into, by, an education authority it shall be the duty of the authority to secure that the education is directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential".
	I will not tire noble Lords by reading the rest of that section; it is pretty clear.
	I accept that this is a declaratory statement but it is none the worse for that, and I do not believe thatany civil servants have lost their job because of its inclusion in that legislation. Indeed, in Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which are very welcome, the Government are doing the same thing. For two years they have been assuring us that schools already have a duty to promote the well-being of pupils but now they see fit to make it clear in legislation. That is what we are trying to do today with the right to education.
	It might be worth asking why the Joint Committee on Human Rights felt it necessary to include such a provision in the Bill. Children's right to education is under threat across the world. Political situations, refugee situations and poverty mean that many millions of children do not receive an education. Some teachers even lose their lives for providing education. I was moved and horrified to read that on 25 September Safia Ama Jan was gunned down in Afghanistan by the Taliban simply for teaching girls and giving them their right to education. Teachers in Ethiopia are also being put under a great deal of pressure for providing education. When children's right to an education is being threatened across the world, it is time for us in this country, where most children are lucky enough to be provided with a good education, to stand up and say so proudly in our legislation, clarifying that we support children's right to a suitable education appropriate to their needs.
	Our amendment is not a blank cheque. We are asking for no more than the right of the child as enshrined in the UN convention, not any particular kind of education in a particular school. Lines 7 and 8 of Clause 1 refer to the education functions,
	"to which this section applies...(so far as they are capable of being so exercised)".
	To fulfil our requested duty, a local authority must show only that it has done its very best to provide an appropriate education for each child. Obviously, we hope that the education they provide will be appropriate for every child and properly resourced.
	We are not asking for a lot. We are not asking for anything that the Government say is not a child's right. We are asking that we stand up and be counted on this, and make it quite clear. The ordinary man in the street does not have the opportunity to go to a legal library to consult half a dozen Acts of Parliament and a good deal of case law in order to find out what the law is. We have here an opportunity to make it absolutely clear that it is the duty of the local authority to ensure that parents are carrying out their responsibility to give their child an education, whether that education is provided by the authority itself, bought in from another authority, provided at home, at an independent school, or in another appropriate way. That is all we are asking for: it is little enough. I beg to move.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I warmly applaud this amendment. We greatly appreciate the consideration the Minister has given our concerns, and the meetings he has facilitated with those responsible within the department. We had good discussions together, and we very much appreciated that opportunity.
	It seems to me sad that a new education Bill should be couched in the—very necessary—language of management and implementation, but fail to spell out at its masthead what we are all trying to achieve. It fails to establish the rallying point around which the rest gather. That is profoundly sad. Teachers are under intense pressure, as are all those involved in the education system. There is great dedication in the profession and among others providing education. That everything required of them by this Bill is in order to fulfil the right of the child to education should appear in words of one syllable in the opening clauses of the Bill. This is the standard to which everybody else can then rally.
	My noble friend has argued very well that there are the four pillars. We all take the four pillars seriously and judicial opinion supports the Minister on this matter. The Minister also asks why we need to put it into the Bill when it is in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have been reminded by my noble friend the Chief Whip that we must not argue at length matters that have already been argued, so I will forgo that temptation. Let me simply say that, yes, it is there in the convention, and we should be proud of the part we played in making that convention a reality. If we played that splendid part, surely it should be reflected and spelt out in our own legislation?
	The noble Baroness referred to Scotland. In all our discussions I have not heard any convincing arguments as to why what was possible in Scotland—that is, to have this rallying point—is not possible south of the Border. There is one other matter I want to mention: in enthusiastically supporting the noble Baroness, I have one quarrel with something she said today in the House. She said that local education authorities will only have to prove that they have done their best. I should like to feel that local education authorities must demonstrate that they have done their level best. It is a strong obligation.
	The noble Baroness went on to make a telling point about the realities of the educational challenge across the world and the penalties being paid by courageous teachers. If we can back up what is set out in the convention by spelling it out in our own legislation, it indicates what should be the policy and in the legislation of other countries. As I say, that is a powerful point.
	But much nearer home, I am concerned about what is happening today. For example, for children in detention and those caught up in immigration and asylum procedures, none of which is of their making, it is not absolutely clear in all circumstances that appropriate education is being provided. We want to ensure that the children caught up in such painful psychological experiences are not still further damaged by not having a key pointer in the legislation which states that there must a right to appropriate education for all children and that the local education authority has a responsibility to provide it. That is terribly important in order to ensure that children who find themselves in a predicament for which they are not responsible are not deprived of the essential education which they should be receiving. It is a struggle to ensure that it is provided, so a specific reference in the Bill would greatly strengthen the position for those who are trying to make sure thatit does.
	The House should be grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us an opportunity, as we pass this Bill, to spell out clearly what it is all about, what is its purpose and why we should all get behind it and make it a success.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue yet again, but I fear that the Government's position remains as it was on the two previous occasions we considered it. While we wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment and intent behind the amendment, as supported by my noble friend, we do not believe it would be appropriate to make this change to primary legislation.
	After long and careful consideration, we still believe that the current legal provisions, supported by jurisprudence, are the most effective way of securing the right to education, and we do not support these further changes. In particular, I note that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 relate only to duties on local authorities. This could cut across the existing fourfold foundation of the right to education which, as I expounded at length at cols. 657 and 658 on17 October, also places duties on parents, the Secretary of State and governing bodies. I hesitate to read it out again, but on that occasion I also cited at length the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, in the case of Ali v Lord Grey School, a judgment issued only this year. It strongly supports the fourfold foundation which, the noble and learned Lord said,
	"has endured over a long period because it has, I think, certain inherent strengths".—[Official Report, 17/10/06; col. 657.]
	We believe that seeking to elevate one of those elements risks weakening the others. Furthermore, an effect of placing a duty on local authorities to secure the right of every child to suitable education in the way proposed here could, we are advised, be used as a legal argument to cut across parental choice and the right of children to be educated either at home or at an independent school. As regards Scotland, raised by both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, it is right that there is such a provision in the law of Scotland, but it has not yet once been deployed in a legal case, so we are not in a position to judge what its effect might be on those who wished to avail themselves of an education that was not of a kind approved in other respects by the public authorities. For these reasons, I regret to say that we oppose these amendments.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his not unexpected reply, and I am grateful too to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his support. The Minister asked why we want to put this duty on local authorities. It is because this Bill puts a duty on local authorities to identify those children not receiving an education. What therefore follows to us poor logical souls is that one should also make it clear whose duty it is to ensure that the child's right is secured. Of course the parents and the Secretary of State have responsibilities. Those are clearly stated in other pieces of legislation. Indeed, local authorities have a number of levers and sanctions in order to assist them, to make sure that the parents fulfil their part of the bargain. But it is because of something elsewhere in the Bill. We felt it necessary to bring forward the amendment today.
	The Minister says that in Scotland the situation has not been challenged legally—that there are no legal cases. Well, QED, say I. That sounds to me as if it is quite clear and not causing any problem. That is why there are no cases.
	We feel very strongly about this. It is absolutely fundamental. We believe that it should be stated right up front in the Bill. We would like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 157.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly
	Clause 7 [Invitation for proposals for establishment of new schools]:

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 7, line 21, at end insert-
	"(aa) state how the proposed school will promote community cohesion in accordance with section 38"

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, this group of amendments will, I hope, pave the way to greater responsibility from schools in their role in improving integration and cohesion in the community. Amendment No. 3 is a probing amendment to ensure that the proposers of new schools are expected to set out their plans for fostering community cohesion in their submissions under Clause 7. I am sure that, with the provisions of the amendments in my name and in the names of others, that would be a routine matter. I therefore propose to spend my few moments talking about the other amendments.
	Of those, Amendments Nos. 7 and 19 are substantial and indeed incorporate new material. Amendment No. 24 is a matter of tidying up thereafter. Amendments Nos. 7 and 19 specify significant and important new duties and where these new duties should lie. Amendment No. 7 places a duty on the governing body of a maintained school to promote the well-being of pupils at that school and, in the case of a school in England, to promote community cohesion. Amendment No. 19 places a duty on the chief inspector to report on,
	"the contribution made by the school to community cohesion".
	I shall be focusing in my comments upon community cohesion; others, I am sure, will welcome and focus upon well-being.
	The background to this is the debate that we have been having for some weeks, nationally and within this House, on the nature and responsibilities of faith schools in our system. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for initiating an important debate on this at Report. I must, however, distinguish between paying tribute and necessarily agreeing. That is for further down the road.
	How are we to deal with the dangers of what David Hume referred to as "errors in religion"? A thorough education in the history of religions indicates both the benefits that religion can give and has given to society as well as to individuals and also the disastrous consequences of what Hume called "errors in religion"—errors which can promote exclusion rather than inclusion, myopia rather than vision, imprisonment of the mind rather than freedom of thought, zippered lips rather than free-flowing pens, and, from the point of view of the amendment before us, errors which might promote disruption rather than cohesion. These errors are dangerous, and there is no one in this House who would encourage them. In the context of education—education of the young—these errors are doubly dangerous. The question is how to avoid them, and that is the intent of these amendments.
	The force of the amendments is first to give a duty to school governing bodies and to point schools in the direction of promoting cohesion—that is, towards cohesion and inclusion rather than disruption and exclusion. Secondly, they would give a duty to the chief inspector to inspect and report on how effectively such a responsibility is being met. I believe that the inspection system we have is capable of doing this in a thorough, fair and comprehensive—as well as comprehensible—manner.
	As a way of avoiding the danger of such errors, the amendments can be commended for three distinct reasons. Many ways of avoiding the dangers of error have been proposed, but I suggest there are three reasons for supporting these amendments. First, they build on an established, proven and universally applied set of procedures developed by Ofsted over the years. This is no new and uncertain proposal introduced to deal with a specific group of new emerging schools. Secondly, they rightly link this duty to promote cohesion and the duty to inspect that with the inspection of the whole school. Let me illustrate. Among other responsibilities that the chief inspector has for reporting, he or she has to report on the quality of education, educational standards, and the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. These matters for report and inspection are a roll call of the markers of excellence in education.
	The point that this makes is that cohesion in our society starts with literacy and numeracy, with educational standards and quality of education. That has to do with cohesion in society, but it does not end there. Cohesion in society has much more to it than that. The amendment affirms, and does so emphatically, that in our society, promoting cohesion shares in the order of priorities at the heart of our education system.
	The third advantage of this way of dealing with potential difficulties born of errors is that our call for cohesion in society is presented not as an additional rod for the back of new or even existing schools; this is not a new way of subjugating the aspirations of schools. Rather, it is a positive encouragement to join an educational system which is informed by the core values and aspirations of our society, of which cohesion is one, and rightly features very highly in current times. It is also an invitation to participate in encouraging those values—here summed up by the word "cohesion"—and to help embed these values in the education system, the education that is provided by each school according to its own lights, if they are good schools, as a whole education for the wholeness of individuals within society.
	In addition, it is clear that this group of amendments is a clear statement that judgments will be made, and they will be acted upon, within a legislative and universal envelope. These judgments are to be made by the school inspection system about the effectiveness and the will of governing bodies to promote community cohesion. We expect that such reports will be acted upon if necessary. They are not simply pieces of paper; there is a firmness and an intention to deal with the dangers of what would disrupt, rather than provide, cohesion within the community. On behalf of what I can regard only as a rainbow coalition, I beg to move.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am now going to be incredibly unpopular. I find this amendment waffle, meaningless and platitudinous. Can anybody seriously imagine a school whose purpose is to promote the ill-being of pupils or community incohesion? This is legislative waffle of the worst order—it is intellectually sloppy and should never be seen on the face of any legislation. Actually, it means that you should not have religious schools, because they are by their nature exclusionist. They fail to promote cohesion because they say they do not want people of other religions to mix with each other, and so should be illegal.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I could not disagree with my noble friend more. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has never promoted anything sloppily. That was an unfortunate comment to make.
	I rather wish that the noble Lord's Amendment No. 3 was grouped with Amendment No. 12, tabled by my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, as they deal with the same matter. However, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. On the "Today" programme this morning, Clifford Longley said in effect that what counts is not so much the admission system as what goes on in a school. That is of course true. In Committee, I supported my noble friend Lord Baker's amendment, but at the same time I wondered if the approach put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was not more realistic and achievable.
	I am a strong supporter of faith schools. However, it is essential for life in the modern world that young people should learn early to relate naturally and make friends across racial, religious and social boundaries. Without that experience and those skills, young people will have very limited life chances indeed. In a faith school where one in four or five students comes from another background, cross-border relationships happen automatically and naturally. That is the point that my noble friend will doubtless make again when he moves his amendment. Where there are few or no "outsiders" in a school, those chances are very limited. We can all think of circumstances where that might happen. I think that in this country the problem arises not mainly in Anglican and Roman Catholic schools but in the schools of the other religions.
	It would be wise to expect every faith school, not just new ones, to arrange with a school of a different background for shared activities such as lessons, sports opportunities and social events. There might even be a twinning of schools. I do not know whether that is the sort of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has in mind. He did not specify, which is why my noble friend thought that he was being woolly. I think that most of us were able to read between the lines of the noble Lord's extremely tactful and diplomatic speech—which was quite clear and definite.
	The expectation that a school will make it possible for young people to inter-relate with those from different backgrounds has to be there. The inspectorate is a way of achieving that provided that Ministers are prepared to back up the inspectorate once it has made proposals. Although I fear that I trespass on territory which will be covered by my noble friend, I support the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, my contribution will be very short. I claim a historical association with this amendment. I have always believed that it was the duty of Ofsted to prevent "error in religion" and, indeed, "error in non-religion". Sixteen years ago, my amendment, accepted by the then Conservative Government, inserted into the 1990 Bill which formed Ofsted "spiritual, cultural, social and moral values" as part of Ofsted's duties. I therefore entirely support the view that responsibility for enforcing those qualities and for reporting schools which are breaking the rules should lie with Ofsted and not with any kind of arbitrary apportionment of the number of places available.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, I too support this group of amendments. They address the concern we have discussed on a number of occasions as we have considered the Bill. Throughout this debate there has been considerable agreement that our schools should support and provide community cohesion. We have disagreed about how that can be best achieved in practice, but faith schools will want to contribute to the process; indeed, to continue to play their part in meeting that aspiration. I therefore welcome these amendments, which achieve that in the right way.
	Like the noble Baroness, I was listening to the "Today" programme this morning and heard Clifford Longley make that comment. It is perhaps worth adding that he made it in the context of reflecting on the work that had been done in Liverpool to bring together the Protestant and Catholic communities by Archbishop Derek Warlock and Bishop David Sheppard. It was in that context that he said it was not admissions policies but what goes on in the school that matters. I think that is right. These amendments would place responsibility for community cohesion where it belongs, with the governing body and Ofsted. I therefore support them.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: My Lords, thenoble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, is a distinguished academic philosopher and one of the most careful and intellectually canny thinkers I know. I was extremely surprised by the response of the noble Earl. Perhaps he should have noticed, or emphasised more carefully, that this clause does not simply leave it to the school whether it is promoting social cohesion. It will be inspected. The inspectorate will have its own benchmark. It will be able to judge and will not simply leave it to the school.
	I ask the Minister to address one point when he comes to respond: does he foresee a time, not too distant in the future, when he could report back to the House on some of the results of this series of inspections, perhaps after a year or so? As we are all aware, there is an intense and serious interest in this subject in the House, and we would like to know whether the inspectorate regime will work.
	As a supporter of church schools I have always felt, as do other of your Lordships, that far more important than the fact of faith schools is what is being taught in the syllabus and, even more important, how it is being taught. I see the dimension of social cohesion, whether or not it is being promoted, running through every aspect of the inspection: how history is taught, or religious education. It must not be simply propaganda, but real, proper education. Because this amendment is designed to ensure that, I support it most warmly.

Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether there will be a statutory definition of community cohesion? I ask that also of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, as one of the signatories to this amendment I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who has so ably moved it today. In answer to the noble Earl, it is worth mentioning a letter from Christine Gilbert, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Ofsted, which was sent to the Minister in the last day or so. She says:
	"I believe that it will be possible for inspectors to make a judgment on this matter by drawing on evidence including, but not restricted to, self evaluation from the self evaluation form ... and that this will be possible while retaining the overall balance and focus of the inspection".
	There is nothing woolly about that. It is a very hard-headed approach that will be capable of assessment. It represents one of two approaches your Lordships can take to this matter, which was raised last week in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. He has done us all a service in raising this issue. He has concentrated our minds on trying to find a way forward.
	One way we could do that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, would be under AmendmentNo. 12, after Clause 45, which we will debate later. That amendment will invite your Lordships to impose quotas on schools. We would then have to determine whether to fix a quota that would be compulsory on all new faith schools. Last week, the Secretary of State stated that that principle could be extended to all Church schools—and concern was expressed about that during last week's debate. It sent a lot of hares running and has led to huge opposition, not just from Catholics but from the Jewish community—the Minister will have seen the letter today from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and others.
	Many impracticalities that go beyond philosophical problems are tied up with quotas. Parents would have to be arraigned through a test act to find out what they believed or did not believe or whether they fitted into the 75 per cent or the 25 per cent. Imagine a situation in which a devout Anglican applied for admission to a new faith school on a Monday and on Tuesday discovered that their child would not be able to enter under the 75 per cent rule. On Wednesday, they could say that they have committed themselves to atheism and, on Thursday, their child could go to that school. On Friday, they could have a roadside conversion and return to the fold. That is what this kind of approach would lead to and that is why the government and opposition Front Benches, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said last week that they were opposed to the idea of statutory quotas—and that is why that approach is doomed to failure.
	However, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, concentrated minds on what we need to do to create a sense of social cohesion, and the amendment, as an alternative to the quota approach, does precisely that. It is the other way forward and builds not only on the proven track record of the inspectorate, as my noble friend has said, but on the consensus that was created in the 1944 Education Act. Driving a coach and horses through the admissions procedures that were agreed in 1944 will create a precedent that will undoubtedly be used to touch all faith schools.
	Better than that, your Lordships would be wise to follow the counsels of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and build on the 1944 agreement. After all, that was a consensual agreement not just between faith communities but between members of the national Government of the day—RAB Butler was the Education Secretary and his Parliamentary Private Secretary was Chuter-Ede, a member of the Labour Party. Agreement was reached after a painstaking search for a way forward. In education, surely it is better to try to find consensus, rather than confrontation. In particular, I pay tribute to role of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and her colleague in another place, Nick Gibb, in trying to find a way forward that would meet all the needs of Members of your Lordships' House.
	The amendment is attractive because, unlike a quota approach limited to new faith schools, it touches all schools, whether in the maintained or voluntary-aided sectors. All schools can be inspected on how they plan for and stimulate community cohesion and a sense of personal responsibility. If a school is failing in that regard, it will be possible to require constructive actions.
	There are three ways forward. We can do nothing; we can opt for the quota approach that will destabilise successful schools and cause division and resentment, because quotas will be used as a shoo-in to catch all faith schools; or we can use an approach basedon the cultivation of duties, fostering a love of our institutions, the encouragement of deep tolerance and respect for other faiths and traditions. That would imply that this is not merely an issue for new faith schools, but one that all schools must address. That option is the best way forward and I hope that the House will support it.

Lord Peston: My Lords, before I go on to my main point, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would do well to read the history of the Education Act 1944, which was not remotely as he described it. It was about RAB Butler buying the Church schools into the system so that he could get the reforms that he wanted. The idea that it was the result of some philosophical discussion and meeting of minds simply does not correspond to the historical facts.
	I was astonished to see this amendment on the Marshalled List as it seems totally to contradict the rest of the Bill. If I wanted to promote community cohesion, as I have always done, I would stick to the view that I have had all my adult life that children should go to their local schools, that those schools should be comprehensive and that they should be full of all the children in the community. The Bill is about the exact opposite of that. Therefore, to use a word from Yiddish, the chutzpah of tabling this amendment absolutely amazes me.
	I am a great admirer, as is everyone, of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, but, given David Hume's view of religion and the possibility of religious schools, quoting him as being in favour of the amendment is equally preposterous. Therefore, although I have a delicacy of touch that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, does not have, I feel that he is right to draw our attention to this matter. How do you promote community cohesion in a system in which children will be in segregated schools of all kinds and will be encouraged to go to those schools? The idea that the path to follow is to tell children in a school in which they have opted to mix only with people of their own kind that community cohesion is important and that it is part of their education, and thinking that they will believe that, is—

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, if the noble Lord had taken part in earlier debates on this subject, he would know that the whole question of how children integrate through community cohesion was well expressed by a number of noble Lords.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I was hoping that someone would intervene. I did not take part in the debates because, being so opposed to the Bill and my loyalty to the Labour Party being such as it is, I felt that I would be better off keeping my mouth shut. I have read all the debates and, in the various contributions from those in favour of religious schools, I have read more nonsense on education than I have seen for a long time. They should recognise that they are in favour of segregation and not community cohesion.
	Perhaps I may give a personal example. I went to an east London grammar school in the old days of the Butler education system. There was no community cohesion in that school. We knew that we were the cleverest boys in east London. We knew that those who did not go to our school were less than us. That is how we were brought up. As I have mentioned before to noble Lords, those of us in the A form never mixed with anyone in the B, C or D forms. We knewa fortiori that we were the best. When I grew up and had children, they went to the local comprehensive school. My friends attacked me because my eldest son, who has not done badly in life, went to a combination of two secondary modern schools. I was accused by all my friends of sacrificing my eldest son because I had a view about children attending the local community school. As I said, my own children did not do badly from that, and I am still totally committed to that view.
	Given the group of people who have tabled the amendment, I assume that there is no point in opposing it in the sense that people will go into the Lobbies and support it, but I thought that at least one voice besides that of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, should be heard on this side saying that this is a ridiculous amendment.

Lord Winston: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has recently visited a religious school. For example, the North West London Jewish Day School—a primary school—is a model of how social cohesion can be achieved in a strictly religious discipline school.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I have not visited that school but I have visited many Jewish schools, which seem to contain only Jewish children. They do not seem to contain any black or brown children or Catholics or anything else. If people want their children to be educated in that way, of course they can use their private funds, but we are discussing schools that have been paid for out of the public purse. There used to be a view that you did not use money from the public purse for private causes, so I stick to my view and still suggest that this is persiflage.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I must reject the allegation that all schools of a religious character are segregated.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I did not say that. My view is that the philosophy of the Bill goes in that direction. Not all religious schools are segregated. Many Church of England schools are very much community schools—no one doubts that—and they always have been.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that, because the noble Lord seemed to be saying that religious schools as such were segregated. I do not wish in any way to go against the Chief Whip's advice about repeating arguments that have been made at previous stages of the Bill. However, it has to be said, as the noble Lord admitted—I was very glad to hear it—that Church of England schools are very often inclusive and open to the wider community. However, one or two other things which are perhaps implied need to be said; first, that Church schools must be distinctively Christian in character—that is why they exist; secondly, they must meet the needs of church-going parents—I think that that was the point which the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham was trying to make; thirdly, they must be open to the wider community. These are not contradictory matters: they can all be achieved given goodwill.
	I have serious doubts about whether the word "cohesion" is enough. This is where I have quite a lot of sympathy with the intent behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, if perhaps not with the form. It is not simply a matter of cohesion whatever the case; the amendment must relate to a vision for society, as the noble Lord said earlier. It has to relate to shared values and about the virtues that we are prepared to inculcate in our children.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have the highest regard for the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, the former Chief Inspector of Schools. He has written almost as many reports on schools as I have read. We are both experts on inspectors' reports.
	Before I further express my support for the amendment, perhaps I may chide the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for saying that the implication of my amendment is to impose quotas of 25 per cent. The amendment would not do that. It would give powers to local authorities, if they wished so to use them to create community cohesion, to establish a quota of up to 25 per cent. We must not hear misrepresentations as early as four o'clock; it really is a little bit naughty.
	I support the amendment because it is helpful. It is not an alternative to my amendment. It is helpful because faith schools should be inspected more regularly and in a tighter way—I agree with the noble Lord entirely on that. However, it is being asked to carry a weight which it will not be able to sustain. It would make the inspectors the instruments of a policy—on which I suspect all your Lordships agree—for a happier and more cohesive society. Can we really ask the inspectors to do this? First, as the noble Lord knows, the inspectors inspect schools on very precise details; for example, is this school teaching history to key stages 3 and 4 correctly? In foreign languages, are the children able to practise sufficiently the language which they are studying? Do they have the equipment to do it? What is the quality of teaching? Again and again, some very subjective statements are made, but the inspectors are used to working in close definitions. The first thing they would have to ask is—I am not being pettifogging—what is the meaning of "community"? If an inspector examines an exclusive Jewish or an exclusive Muslim school in, let us say, Tower Hamlets, what is the community of the cohesion with which the inspector is concerned? Is it just Tower Hamlets? Or is it Tower Hamlets and East Ham? Or is it the whole of east London? Or is it the whole of London? That is what inspectors will ask and what the Government will at some stage have to define. They will have to define exactly what "community" means in this context.
	I suspect that what the amendment is getting at is a report on relationships—the relationship of that school with the other local schools, the relationship of that school with the parents and children of other schools. Inspectors will have to look at precisely what is taught in schools under religious education. That was raised by the noble Lord I think. The inspectors will have to make a comment on one of the most difficult fine lines in religious education: where religious education ends and indoctrination starts. That central question has to be asked. Inspectors will have to comment on it and they will have to attend a large number of religious instruction classes in schools to determine that. If religious instruction veers off into indoctrination, communities can suffer a lack of cohesion and trouble can start.
	Inspectors have a huge task. On relationships between schools, which my noble friend Lady Carnegy mentioned, and whether schools can have joint activities, it is marvellous if that can happen, but let us be realistic: there will be no joint activities in sport between a Muslim school and a non-Muslim school because of dress codes; there will be no combined swimming galas; there will be no combined music classes; there will be no combined art classes; and in drama there will be no desire to stage Romeo and Juliet between a Muslim school and an Anglican school because every page of Romeo and Juliet is against the Koran. I suspect that there will not be a great desire to stage a combined King Lear, because filial devotion in that play is not exactly what it ought to be.
	I ask your Lordships to be realistic about this. I entirely accept that relationships and activities are important between schools and they exist in some areas: for example, Catholic schools in Glasgow take their children to the local mosque. I know that because of an episode that appears in a very good novel I read this year, which I recommend to your Lordships, called Be Near Me by Andrew O'Hagan. It is about a Catholic priest in Glasgow and some ghastly Catholic yobbos—sometimes Catholic schools turn out ghastly yobbos—who are taken to the local mosque and the result is not community cohesion. But that is fiction.
	Schools can come together on civics and learn about that, but the degree of co-operation beyond that is not all that great. That is why people who support my amendment would like to see schools where children of different faiths play together in the playground, sit together in maths and physics lessons, talk together over lunch and go home on the same buses. We think that that is a happier system and a better way to create community cohesion.
	I turn to one specific point made by the noble Lord that reports should be acted upon. As the writer of many reports, he will know that sometimes reports are acted on and sometimes they are not. A recent Chief Inspector of Schools, David Bell, put in a report only a year ago that many Muslim schools,
	"must adapt their curriculum to ensure that [they provide] pupils with a broad general knowledge of public institutions and services in England and help them to acquire an appreciation of and respect for other cultures in a way that promotes tolerance and harmony".
	We all agree with that. What have the Government done as a result of that report? Perhaps the Minister can direct our attention to particular papers that have been issued by the department to implement that recommendation from the inspector, because many reports, as he will know, are not acted on.
	Mr Bell also said:
	"The growth in favour of schools needs to be carefully but sensitively monitored by government to ensure that pupils at all schools receive an understanding of not only their own faith but of other faiths and the wider tenets of British society".
	The department is miserably deficient in that. In the past year, I have asked various questions of the department on faith schools and I get the reply that the information is not held. I have asked how many children from other faiths go to faith schools and it has no idea. It did not even know that the admissions procedures in some faith schools require photographs, which is actually illegal.
	For some time, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has had on his desk a report about a school in Sussex which has only four pupils and which has radical weekends. Why has he not closed that school? If we are to depend on inspectors' reports, we must be satisfied that they are acted on. Although I support the amendment—I think it embodies the direction in which we all want to go—by itself it carries a weight which the issue cannot bear and that is why I hope many noble Lords will later support my amendment.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—he may take reassurance from the fact—that in Scotland, as a result of an inspector's report, a private faith school was closed down because it was failing to provide an adequate education in the terms in which we have been speaking? It can be done, but I accept his point that it requires a will at ministerial level.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, as I am one of the signatories of Amendments Nos. 7 and 19. I attended a comprehensive school—I was not fortunate enough to get into a grammar school—and all my children also went to comprehensive schools. I support faith schools because they have provided good education, whether they are Church schools, Jewish schools, Sikh, Hindu or Muslim schools. There are only seven or eight state-funded Muslim schools, not 124. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Baker, saying on television this morning that they might be applying. The Association of Muslim Schools told me this morning that only seven are seeking voluntary-aided status. We need to have facts rather than scaremongering to the effect that there are hundreds of Islamic and Muslim schools that want state funding; we need to make sure that all the rules are in place.
	I apologise to the House that I was not here on Report—I was discussing bail, which was a big national issue for us all. The Association of Muslim Schools told me that it already does as much as it can and it is prepared to do more in terms of intra-community relations; and with community cohesion work it already teaches the common vision, common purpose and core values that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, talked about. We need to make sure that our children have a sense of belonging, citizenship, rights and responsibilities. There is more in terms of recognising diversity. Cohesion is not a single-way process; it is a two-way process. We have to recognise and celebrate our diversity. We need to create an environment to strengthen relations in the workplace, in places of worship and the community, wherever we can. We need to have a process of cohesion that is important and the empowerment of communities so that they can engage.
	When we give the example of state-run schools in Tower Hamlets, we are not talking about Islamic schools, faith schools, or Jewish schools. Even the state-run schools have 98 per cent children from one community, so it is wrong just to target faith schools. If we go to Bradford, Leicester or Southall we will find state-run schools with 98 or 99 per cent of children from one community. So community cohesion needs to be taught and promoted, but in every school. We all need to do it. I was speaking in Nottingham yesterday and I said that we have to open up our mosques every Friday for a samosa and cup of tea for every member of the community who wants to come in, because there is nothing to hide. It is such misunderstandings, whether in the media or through politicians, that lead to people thinking that there is an alien community.
	On that issue I could not understand why the Muslim community has suddenly become a burden in society when we all recognise that during the Second World War Muslims gave their lives to save the way of life of our democracy. There are cemeteries in Woking commemorating Muslims who died for Britain fighting against the fascists and the Nazis. Muslims were part of the British society that helped to rebuild this country's economy after the Second World War—in the steel and textile industries—and they have been very good contributors to British society.
	Very recently, because of a few criminals, because of a few who were given time on television and in our newspapers to provoke entire communities—andalso to insult and demonise our religion and communities—we have this huge debate. The Muslim community and the Association of Muslim Schools welcome any opportunity to be able to meet requirements for community cohesion and I am delighted to support the amendment.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I respect those who take the view that there should not be faith schools, but it is because we have faith schools that we havethe amendment. To the noble Earl, I say that I understand his point and I am glad that he made it. If the amendment stated just that schools should be in favour of community cohesion, he would be right, but it states "promote". There is an active verb there and that makes the difference. To the noble Baroness, Lady David, I say that I listened to what she said about twinning. That could be one way in which cohesion could be promoted in particular cases.
	I join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for promoting—no, provoking is the right word—the amendment. I am glad to hear support because I have felt for a long time that this is the kind of thing that we needed state schools and faith schools to be doing actively. I have argued actively for that within my own Church and more widely. The noble Lord said that there were limits within which it was practical to expect schools of different faiths to relate to one another. I understand that. But I have been to Church of England schools that predominantly contain children of the Muslim faith. They get on and it works. We play Pakistan at hockey and it works—except that they win. So there are these opportunities.
	I want to be brief, so I mention a practical suggestion for promoting cohesion that came fromSir Cyril Taylor, chairman of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. He wrote a paper arguing that one of the problems in promoting community cohesion is that many immigrants do not have much capacity to speak English. That is especially true of many Muslim mothers who come to this country. Many of them cannot speak any English. His proposal is that schools in such areas should take it on themselves to run English classes after school for those people. He points out that the Learning and Skills Council has recently withdrawn funding for such courses in Tower Hamlets, where there is a huge demand for them.
	I say to the Minister that that is something that is practical, useful, to the point and deserves funding. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, it would be good if the Minister made available non-statutory guidance on what constitutes good practice in that regard.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Baker, the amendment is a fine set of words. If we were dealing with an amendment to the European Union constitution, I know how it would be used—because I have seen a great deal in Sub-Committee E of how the European Union is capable of making a great deal out of very small words and for ever taking power, based on what some kind person has written down. This is just the sort of wordy provision that could be used by an organisation such as the Commission to do a great deal. However, I share my noble friend's concern that it will not be.
	The amendment has the virtue that it applies to all schools. It would apply to the socially selective, comfortable, suburban comprehensive school which, if community was defined as it might be, would have to find ways to reach out to its neighbouring council estates—perhaps by having some socially blind admission system by ballot or whatever.
	The promotion of community cohesion seems to me to be a thoroughly worthwhile enterprise. If this is something that is going to be used and turns out over time to have teeth and to move the faith schools in the direction of being more part of the community than they are, I will find this a thoroughly good amendment. I share the pessimism of my noble friend that it will, but I will support this amendment happily because I am allowed to be optimistic from timeto time.
	I do, however, want to quarrel briefly with something the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. He implied that paying 10 per cent of the costs of the school gives you total rights over it. Suppose that the independent schools got together and said: "We will pay 10 per cent of the cost of a new university but only pupils from independent schools will be allowed to go to it". That would be outrageous. Why, then, is it acceptable that any religious group, by paying10 per cent of the cost of the school, can have exclusive use of it?

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I would not like the noble Lord to leave that point on the record as it is, because I did not say that. What I made clear, I hope, in my remarks and in my speech last week on Report was that where a community has made considerable sacrifice to build a school, it should have rights to send its children to the school that they have contributed towards, whereas if quotas are imposed, members of that community may well be excluded from it.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord is saying exactly what I thought he said; namely, that by making a sacrifice of the order of 10 per cent of the cost of that school, that community should have rights over the whole of its admissions.
	I approach this from a different point of view. I think faith schools are desirable. I think to be true faith schools, they have to be supported by their Church and have a decent community of that Church as part of their make-up, so I am very happy that Church schools should be founded and should be partially selective on religion. But I really do not think that saying that providing a little bit of money entitles us to all the places is the basis on which we should run our society. I think we should not tolerate but welcome faith schools and we should welcome the provision of the particular kind of education that they make available to all of us.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I would like to go back to the beginning of this debate. When I read this amendment, I was absolutely joyful because it seemed to me that in an amazing way, starting with the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, tabled, which had enormous point to it, we were getting to the point of what the whole of this semi-argument has been about; that is, to have an inclusive education system. One of the best ways to do this is to build on the strengths we already have in the community. There are huge strengths in the faith schools and in the Government's plans involving an extension of trust schools, and there are other ways of doing this. I congratulate everybody who signed up to the two major amendments that we are discussing.
	Governors of schools will also welcome this but I must nudge the Minister on one concern I have. When more trust schools are set up, the promoters of these schools are going to have rather more rights in appointing the governors, and the number of elected parent governors will go down. I would have thought that the aim of everything we have talked about is to make the local community much more cohesive and I hope that even more school governors will come from the local community. Joining-up and the use of extended schools are very well thought-through plans for just how things are going to operate for the benefit of the whole community, as well as for children in the schools. I also support the idea of language teaching and the various other ways in which local communities can join together.
	I doubt whether we could have had this debate a year or two ago, as the tensions were just too high. The very fact that, since the noble Lord, Lord Baker, moved his original amendment, everybody has got down to seeking the most proactive, effective way forward reflects very well on your Lordships' House and the Government, so I congratulate them. I hope that we will look to the approach proposed. I have to say that there have probably been too many education Bills, even during my time in this House, but for those who do not believe that the voluntary approach will work there will be other occasions when we can review its effectiveness. We underestimate the ingenuity and spiritual approach of those of varied nationalities and religions—and those with no religion—involved in our community who want to make a success of all the talent we have in this country.

Baroness Morris of Yardley: My Lords, this debate has been very interesting; it seems, to some extent, to have got into the right position today. I welcome the amendment and would find it difficult to vote against it. Who could vote against an amendment that promoted community cohesion? That, at least, gives us a common starting point.
	There have been two sides to this debate: faith schools and community cohesion. Although the issues overlap, we have run the danger in previous stages of the Bill of thinking they were one and the same. Two weeks ago I would have agreed with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, but given the views of some Churches, particularly the Catholic Church, I think it wise not to push it and make the arrangement compulsory.
	I welcome the attitude of the Church of England in saying that it will voluntarily seek, as it does now, to admit people from other faiths. I say to my good friend the Archbishop of Birmingham, with whom I have worked closely over the years, that having been around many Catholic—and Jewish—schools I do not believe for a minute that admitting one in four children of another faith or none would take away from the Catholic nature of the school. The values of the school were strong enough not to be weakened by the admission of one non-Catholic pupil in four. Although I accept the Archbishop's comments that he has a primary obligation to parents of Catholic children whom they want to have a Catholic education, we have a wider obligation to all children in the community. Had the Archbishop voluntarily said, "We will go along those lines so that all our schools and not just some of them—we were only ever talking about the new schools—will have 25 per cent of people who are not of the Catholic faith", I do not think that it would have set back Catholic education in this country. However, that position ought to be arrived at through consensus. I hope that this issue does not fall off the agenda, and that in months and years to come the Churches will find that they can change their position.
	I would not have chosen to teach in a faith school, and had I had children I would not have chosen to send them to one, but I have always defended other people's right to make that choice. It is strange that, at this time, when we are talking about defending our liberties and things that have been precious to us for generations, we are in danger of becoming the first generation to say that we can no longer tolerate somebody else's decision to enrol their child at a faith school because of the nature of the community. If we ever did that, we would be giving up a liberty that we have had for many centuries. I also acknowledge the role that Church schools played in educating poor children long before the state did so.
	I turn now to the essence of this amendment. I welcome our being, to some extent, where we should have been. What is society worried about? I do not think that it is worried about faith schools. Society is worried that a number of factors are leading our children to live and learn in segregated communities. Faith schools have been thought of as an example of that, which is why they are entwined in this debate. So, I welcome the fact that there should be something in legislation about promoting community cohesion. But there are dangers in that. There is a real risk that, because it is in legislation, we will think that it is already done or that it will take place. There is a risk of Parliament sending the message that we do not acknowledge the teachers, schools and communities that have already been working very hard to do the things we are talking about now. To some extent we are putting in law the best of what already takes place.
	I say to the Minister that this is the third attempt to do this. The first attempt was back in my day when we had a similar debate on faith schools in an education Bill. I was not around long enough to see the publication of the proposal, and I cannot lay my hands on it now, but it was a list of 20 ways in which faith schools can promote community cohesion. However, when looking for that piece of paper from 2002, I found another one: the Local Government Association's Community Cohesion—An Action Guide from 2004. I shall read out some words from the section on education, which was backed by the DfES:
	"Educational institutions have a key role in building cohesion...promoting the values of equality, diversity and mutual respect...to promote shared values... similar life opportunities"—
	through literacy and numeracy—
	"cross-cultural contact, through mixed intakes, school twinning and community-wide extra-curricular activities".
	My only reason for reading that out is to show that we must be very clear about what we now expect to change. What will change when we pass the Bill? I understand the importance of putting it in legislation, and I understand the importance of inspection. But we need to see the bigger picture of what a socially cohesive community looks like. Are we saying that it looks like a school where all children are not of the same race or ethnic background, do not come from the same street, and do not have the same faith? If that is true, what powers will we give anybody to change that? Will we put in schools' admissions codes of practice that they should ensure that the school is ethnically balanced? I hope not. We must go beyond this. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, was right in this respect: it is easy to sign up to this, but more difficult to see exactly where are the levers that will make sure that it is implemented. I welcome it; it has got us out of a difficult position in this debate. I very much hope that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will be accepted by all churches in future years.
	I ask the Minister to flesh out what he expects to change. What is his evaluation of the two previous attempts to bring this about without legislation? What powers will be needed to make sure that we end up in a different position from the present one? Quite honestly, if schools look as they do now in five years' time, we will not have achieved our objective. Schools are some of the most cohesive institutions in our community—more so than almost anywhere else. Schools have not caused the problem we have at the moment; schools have mitigated its worst excesses. Do not blame schools, but look to them for a solution. It behoves us to say to schools: thanks for what you have been doing, but what can we do to help you be more effective in promoting social cohesion?

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I point out for the record that existing Catholic schools have something approaching 30 per cent of pupils who are not Roman Catholic?

Baroness Flather: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the various views expressed about community cohesion in the debate, and I feel that something is missing. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has just mentioned in passing the principle of shared values. Community cohesion without shared values is not of much use. In saying that, I wish particularly to point out one factor. Let us not beat about the bush, we are concerned about Muslim schools more than we are about the existing faith schools. We have heard over and over again that everyone likes to send their children to faith schools because they are more disciplined, they have uniforms and they hold to old-fashioned values. That is fine, and we are not worried about that. But let us consider very strict schools such as Jewish Hasidic schools, and then we should be worried, as we should have certain worries about Islamic schools.
	I assume that they will be single-sex schools, a point which no one has mentioned. There is nothing wrong with single-sex schools, but are we sure that gender equality will be taught in these schools? Gender equality may be a subject in girls' schools, but will it be one in boys' schools? There is no point in fudging the issue because we all know that this is an issue. Whether you come from India, from Pakistan or any other Islamic country, this is a major issue and I think it is about shared values. In this country, we do not want to lose the way we treat everyone—women, men, girls and boys—in a faith school.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, Members on these Benches also support the amendments, and your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that. At every stage of this Bill amendments have been tabled from these Benches on the duty to promote social cohesion, despite the fact that in Clause 33(6) there is already a duty on foundation schools to promote it. We tabled an amendment to put the duty on local authorities, with their more broad-brush powers that affect whole communities. In Amendment No. 11, to be debated later, we also seek to put the duty on admission forums rather than just have it in guidance. So noble Lords will not be surprised to see that we support Amendment No. 7, which started life as a duty to promote well-being but now has had the duty to promote social cohesion added to it. However, we will have the debate on well-being in a few minutes' time when we come to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
	If you ask an Irishman how to get to Tipperary, he will answer you by saying, "Well, I would not have started from here". I too would not have started from here. It is probably well known that I, like many noble Lords, would prefer the state and religion to be separated and for our schools not to be of any denomination. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has rightly said, we are starting from here. We have faith schools, many of them extremely good schools and popular with parents. But what we have to do is to persuade them to serve the whole community as much as they possibly can and to open their doors to those of other faiths or none. The question, of course, is how that is done. Indeed, the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, also occurred to me: does a school have the capacity to actually affect social cohesion in its community other than—I stress this—by addressing its admissions policy?
	The noble Lord, Lord Baker, emphasised the burden on the inspectorate produced by this amendment. I agree that it is a heavy burden, and I want to ask about the benchmarks. How are these things to be inspected? The noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested that it would be done through the self-evaluation forms that the schools have to fill in. I am concerned that schools that do not want to open up their admissions to those of other faiths and none are not let off the hook by Ofsted.
	It is not enough to make federations, however loose or close, with other schools. It is not enough to outreach into the community. At Report stage we enjoyed hearing the noble Lord, Lord Alton, tell us that Catholic schools do such outreach, but such work is not enough. These schools have to open up their admissions to people of other faiths and none. I am somewhat doubtful whether some of them want to do that at the moment, and, even if they do, unless things change, whether people of other faiths and none will want to go to those schools. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that schools can be part of the solution. They are not necessarily part of the problem of social integration, but they certainly can be part of the solution. That is why we welcome these amendments.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am very pleased to return to this debate with an amendment that is the result of the best spirit of consensus. I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have supported the amendment, beginning with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. However, it is thanks largely to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the amendment before us has materialised, and thanks to the combined efforts of the noble Lords who signed up to the amendment that such consensus has been achieved. I do not think that the media or most people in the world outside have any idea, or will ever know, much of what has gone on behind the scenes over the past week, which is what has brought us to this consensus. We were expecting a government amendment but are pleased that one has not surfaced. Following the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Education after Report last week, we on these Benches were very wary of any kind of quota system. While I am sure that the Minister would have handled it responsibly, we are not so confident in his potential successors.
	Briefly, Amendment No. 3, in my name, is a probing amendment to ensure that new schools will be expected to set out in their proposal their plans for fostering community cohesion. I am sure that the Minister can assure me that that would be a matterof routine. These amendments offer a hugely constructive way forward in how greater integration of faith schools can be achieved. While it is the integration of faith schools that has come under scrutiny in recent weeks in public debate, it is clear that the successful future of a cohesive society cannot be the responsibility of faith schools alone. That is why I am so pleased that these amendments will apply to all schools, not just faith schools, and will form part of their inspection regime. It is right that this is an enterprise taken on by all in the education system, and, I should add, by all of us outside the education system as well.
	The amendments germanely link well-being to community cohesion. I applaud that sentiment. It is clear that the future well-being of our nation depends on greater integration and interaction within communities. That is the right step forward. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that these measures are introduced and applied with some rigour. Community cohesion among the next generation of young Britons is of critical importance and we should expect all faith communities and those without a religious faith among us to set an exemplary example. I for one, in my personal capacity, shall be watching this like a hawk.
	In the context of this Bill, I believe that this amendment strikes the right balance between parental choice, school autonomy and community cohesion through social responsibility. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, is absolutely right. This is going to be a local effort. It is about involvement with parental governors, which has to be the right way forward.
	These amendments provide the perfect incentive to engender social responsibility. Legislation is at its best where it expresses an expectation of a standard, provides an audit on that expectation and trusts people to act upon it themselves, and yet achieves that without the complex rigidity of a quota system. I am proud to have been able to assist in its success and I am pleased that the Minister has been able to abandon his previous position and give his support to this side of the debate. The motto of these amendments could well be, "Integration, not intervention". I ask noble Lords to support these amendments, which will enhance the efforts of schools in playing their crucial role in spreading the values of tolerance that will foster community cohesion.
	During the passage of the Bill we have had a full, open and often very frank debate about an extremely important and, for some, very difficult subject. We should thank my noble friend Lord Baker for initiating the debate. This is a classic example of this House, as it is currently constituted, being free to express a whole cross-section of views, openly and without fear or favour.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we are debating Amendments Nos. 7, 19 and 24 separately from Amendment No. 12, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, which concerns admissions to faith schools. But, as Amendment No. 12 has the same genesis, if I may put it that way, I need to explain how we have got to where we are with these amendments.
	When we debated the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, at Report stage, I emphasised the importance that the Government attach to all schools, including faith schools, promoting community cohesion. I should say to my noble friend Lord Peston—who I am delighted to see has joined us in our deliberations—that the Bill already makes reference to community cohesion, specifically in respect of trusts and the new types of schools that will develop as a consequence of the Bill. I draw his attention to Clause 33(6) of the Bill which states that new foundations shall have requirements on them which, in carrying out their functions in relation to the school, must promote community cohesion.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I have a feeling that my minor contribution was not understood. The point I was trying to make is that you get community cohesion by going to the same school as your friends. Once you start siphoning off people, it will get rid of community cohesion. I may be arguing erroneously but my point was that the school promoting community cohesion is not a feasible strategy; it needs to have in it a full range of children. I may be wrong. I am not really allowed to join in now anyway because I have spoken once, but that is what I was tryingto say.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I believe that it is perfectly possible for schools, including faith schools, to promote community cohesion in exactly the kinds of ways set out by my noble friend Lady Morris when she quoted from guidance issued by the department. Of course, we want to see that take place to a higher degree in future.
	As to admissions, in our earlier debates I welcomed the Church of England's decision that its new schools will offer places within their local community in addition to those made available to declared Anglican families. I said that if there was a sufficient consensus for such a policy—and I was careful to say "if there was a sufficient consensus"—then the Government would be prepared to introduce a local authority power, but emphatically not a duty, in respect of admissions to other new faith schools. I undertook that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I would consult with the other political parties, with MPs and Peers with an interest in this matter, and with the leaders of the faith communities before deciding on our way forward.
	We have undertaken those consultations. Having done so, as the House is now well aware, we have decided that the best and most effective way to promote community cohesion is to lay a duty to promote community cohesion on the governing bodies of all schools. This will of course extend beyond faith schools, whether new or existing, and will embrace all schools whatever their admissions policies. We believe that this will make it far more effective.
	My noble friend Lady David and the nobleEarl, Lord Onslow, asked about the definition of "cohesion". An effective definition is already available in the documentation issued by the Home Office in its publications on community cohesion. This defines "community cohesion" as,
	"the appreciation and positive valuation of the diversity of people's different backgrounds and circumstances",
	and the development of,
	"strong and positive relationships...between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and within neighbourhoods".
	That takes up the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about relationships between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and within neighbourhoods.
	I believe that the whole House would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that those are immensely worthwhile objectives which we should be seeking to promote and it is to the advantage of our society that they should be advanced in schools and there should be some teeth behind the promotion of those duties. That is why the new duties will be supported by new inspection requirements—to give them that force.
	My right honourable friend and I are grateful to all those who have helped us to develop an effective way forward, which is encompassed in the amendment before us. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who speaks with the authority of a former chief inspector, set out the case for this approach most powerfully. We also appreciate the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Ahmed. I also thank the leaders of the faith communities, who are strongly supportive of this approach.
	Ofsted also endorses the proposed approach—both the new duty on schools to promote community cohesion, and the new role for Ofsted in monitoring it. I have discussed this issue in detail with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Christine Gilbert, who was until last month chief executive of Tower Hamlets Council and so brings considerable personal experience to bear in this area. In her confirmatory letter to me she says:
	"I welcome your proposal that Ofsted should be asked to judge the extent to which learners contribute to community cohesion; and that in doing so we should assess both the education of pupils and how the school works with others in the community to achieve this.
	I believe that it will be possible for inspectors to make a judgement on this matter by drawing on evidence including, but not restricted to, self evaluation from the self evaluation form (SEF); and that this will be possible while retaining the overall balance and focus of the inspection".
	We have the powerful endorsement of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and, taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about how this will be reported through to Parliament regularly, the chief inspector makes an annual report to the Secretary of State which is laid before Parliament and which encompasses all of the areas of Ofsted's inspection activity during the course of the year. Ofsted also publishes periodic thematic reports and we believe that this would be an appropriate area for one of Ofsted's reports in due course. They are of course published and subject to debate in this House and in the other place.
	In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on the steps that the Government take to follow up Ofsted reports, he will know that the Government have not been dilatory in following up the Ofsted report in respect of the particular private Islamic school in Sussex that he referred to. There was a full parliamentary Statement on the action that Ofsted and the Government have taken in response to that report and we believe that the public authorities have risen to their responsibilities in that regard. I should stress that David Bell's remarks, which the noble Lord cited, were in respect of private Islamic schools and it is precisely in those schools that we have powers of enforcement where they do not meet the required standards. In the particular case that he mentioned, we have made it clear that we are ready to exercise to the full those powers of enforcement if the standards of education do not meet the required level.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, the report that the noble Lord refers to by David Bell specifically referred to inadequate standards in private schools and it anticipated that the Government would react. That report has not been debated in this House as far as I know and the Government have taken no action upon it. If the noble Lord's amendment is to be effective there must be action upon the report.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, that is simply not correct. Where Ofsted reports unfavourably on the standards in a private Islamic school, enforcement action follows and there are set procedures to ensure that that takes place.
	Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, Ofsted already reports on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils, assesses personal development and well-being and evaluates learners' contribution to the community. In doing so, inspectors already pick up on aspects of a school's work which contribute to community cohesion; the measures we are debating build on that. However, having an explicit reference in legislation will, we believe, ensure that all schools will be held to account for their contribution in this important aspect. My department will work with Ofsted to determine what changes will be necessary to the inspection framework and supporting documents, such as the self-evaluation form, to make this a reality.
	The new focus on community cohesion through school inspection will enable the tremendous work that is already taking place in many of our schools across the country to be recognised and shared. For example, we know of a wide range of school-linking projects: children and their families from diverse ethnic, cultural, social and religious backgrounds who might normally not meet because they live inand attend schools in different areas are able to work and play together through joint assemblies, visits and activities. Many schools also encourage visits by leaders of other faiths to increase understanding of different religions. To cite one example, the Tower Hamlets Inter Faith Forum is working in partnership with secondary schools and the local standing advisory council on religious education to develop a model for supporting religious education and community cohesion across the borough by encouraging faith leaders to visit schools. Three schools are currently piloting the project, and the borough is looking to take this forward more widely.
	The new focus for school inspection will also identify schools that need to do more. Here I pick up the remark of my noble friend Lady Morris about there being an impetus to defined activities which will see that the duty to promote community cohesion is taken seriously. Schools should do more through their curriculum delivery, including education outside the classroom; they should do more through developing partnerships and effective working with other bodies; and they should do more through the professional development of staff, among other things.
	Prompted by Ofsted's findings and by recommendations on areas for improvement, schools will be expected to take appropriate action. They will need to reflect the progress made on these actions in updating the self-evaluation form. The school improvement partners will challenge and support the school in making any necessary improvements, and schools will need to inform parents about this progress through the school profile.
	We believe that this is an effective way forward. We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for bringing Amendment No. 3 forward, and I strongly commend Amendments Nos. 7, 19 and 24 to the House.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he explain what would happen if a school was top of the exam league but failed to make any effort to promote community cohesion? Would it be closed down? What punishment would there be? What effect could anyone have if that were the case, which is perfectly possible?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, Ofsted would report accordingly. It would give the school a very low grade on its action to promote community cohesion, and the school would be expected to produce an action plan setting out the measures it would take to meet the concerns expressed. There are clear practices on critical Ofsted reports, and they would apply to the full in such a case.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I think all noble Lords will be grateful to the Minister for his response and it gives me great pleasure to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 8 [Proposals under section 7 relating to community or community special schools]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 8, leave out lines 6 to 10 and insert-
	"(a) only if the authority receives at the prescribed time an excellent or good standard in performing their functions; or (b) with the consent of the Secretary of State in other cases where prescribed conditions are met."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the amendment relates to Clauses 7 to 14 about competition for establishing new schools. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we on these Benches have been arguing in favour of local authorities having as much right to put forward proposals for new schools as any other organisation or institution. In Committee, my noble friend Lady Williams argued very coherently for promoting a level playing field between local authorities and other organisations and institutions that are, particularly under Clauses 7 and 8, encouraged to put forward proposals for new schools.
	In Committee and at Report, we tabled amendments to open up the competition between local authorities. We also argued for the deletion of Clause 8 which, as we argued then and continue to argue, imposes unduly restrictive constraints on local authorities. Clauses 7 and 8 are only about putting forward proposals for a competition for a new school. Decisions are then taken as to which of the proposals may go forward. We have been arguing that local authorities should have the right to put forward a proposal for a community school on the same sort of basis as the other institutions being encouraged to do so by this Bill.
	Clause 8 was inserted as part of a set of compromises agreed within the Commons. It essentially allows local authorities to establish community schools only when that local authority has achieved the top rating of excellent in the local authority performance ratings. Only 11 authorities out of 145 have achieved that rating. Local authorities are otherwise allowed to put forward a proposal only with the permission of the Secretary of State, and then subject to a lot of further conditions relating to the proportion of foundation and voluntary-aided or controlled schools already existing in the area. We seek on this occasion not to eliminate Clause 8 but to ease the criteria so that authorities getting the top two ratings in local authority performance assessment will be allowed to put forward proposals for community schools.
	The amendment would retain the Secretary of State's control over proposals put forward by authorities achieving only a fair or poor rating. We thus meet the criteria of one objection put forward at Report to our proposals then, when the Minister said:
	"I do not accept that a local authority should have an unfettered right, however bad its track record, to promote schools which it more directly manages. A local authority with a poor track record should commission those with better prospects of success—be they a parents group or an education foundation—to take on the task by means of a trust or a voluntary-aided school or an academy".—[Official Report, 17/10/06; col. 674.]
	On this occasion, we accept that those with a poor track record should not be allowed to enter the competition. We ask that those with a good track record—the good and the excellent—should be allowed to do so. This amounts to approximately 100 of 145 authorities, cutting out those that have a poor track record.
	I stress again that we are arguing only about who may put forward proposals for the competition. The competition then goes forward, and it is not necessarily the proposal put forward by the local authority that is chosen. The local authority is one of the contestants and the competition is decided bythe adjudicator. We argued last time that local authorities, elected democratically by those who pay council tax—a good part of council tax pays for schools in the area—should know what the local community wants. It is right and proper that they have the chance to make known what they thinkthat is.
	I also find it astonishing in the week after the Government have published their White Paper on local government, which asks local authorities to take more responsibility, that in the heart of the Bill we have a clause that prevents them from taking responsibilities which I believe are their democratic right. I beg to move.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I support what my noble friend has just said. To me it is astonishing that the House has virtually emptied, having given itself great satisfaction in passing an amendment—or at least getting the Government to agree to it—about promoting community cohesion. Many have left the House at the very point at which the issue of how many community schools are going to survive in this country comes to the centre of the debate. What an astonishing paradox that is.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, pointed out, the tremendous achievement of our comprehensive, local authority schools has been precisely in creating community schools. The whole idea of comprehensive schools was to bring about such cohesion, because faith is not the only issue that might divide a society; there is also class, income, background, gender and race. Over the past 40 years, these community schools have made an astonishing contribution to community cohesion in this country.
	Having satisfied themselves with putting a couple of words into the Bill—with, admittedly, as the Minister has articulately pointed out, some obligation on the inspectors to ensure that that means something—a part of this House then leaves before the crucial element of the Bill is discussed: how many of our community schools will be permitted, under the Bill, to survive.
	In our amendment we are proposing something simple. The local authorities that could be permitted to put forward a proposal for a new community school or community special school should include not just the very thin group at the top that are described as "excellent", but the rather broader group described as both "excellent" and "good". I must ask your Lordships to consider for a moment whether we are applying those criteria to all the other schools that will be part of the pattern of education under the terms of the Bill. The Edinburgh study published in May 2006 pointed out that the academies so far in existence, despite all the extra money that has been lavished upon them, had achieved less than a 1 per cent improvement on the position of the associated previous community schools. I pointed out to this House only recently that the closest parallel we have to the proposed trust schools, the charter schools of America, have actually produced less successful standards in literacy and numeracy than the schools they succeeded.
	We have pointed out from these Benches that the single most successful educational system in the whole of Europe, according to the OECD—a pretty independent and impeccable source—is the comprehensive system in Finland. It is far ahead of virtually any other European country and sadly a long way ahead of this country. It has been argued that Finland is a small country. Yes, it is. It is also amazingly cohesive and educationally successful.
	We have tended not to look too closely at the relatively better results of our Scottish colleagues, in terms of the proportion going on to higher education, staying on, achieving in schools and so on, in what is still almost entirely a genuinely comprehensive system, not one that has been raddled by political football matches in the way that has been in true in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	My first point is that we ought to consider above all—I believe that the Minister is very concerned about this and always has been—what constitutes a good school. Surely the criteria we apply to good schools, whether trust schools, academies or CTCs, should also be the criteria we apply to community schools. That means we should include the good alongside the very small group called "excellent", and that should be true across the whole spectrum of education.
	My second point has already been made effectively by my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford. What is proposed runs directly contrary to the promises made by the Government in the White Paper on local government. In it we give local government some extra, rather unattractive, powers to impose fixed penalties. In this Bill, we take away from local authorities a much more significant power, the power to run a substantial number of schools in their own communities, thereby making a joke of the Government's recent promises to devolve much more power to local authorities.
	Thirdly, on community cohesion, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is right to say that words, admittedly supported by the inspectors in this case, are not much of a substitute for a structure of education that puts the community and community cohesion at its heart. We are trading a serious system for a passel of promises. Fourthly, but not least important, we have a serious problem of trying to attract enough good teachers to stay in our schools and enough even better teachers to take on the huge responsibilities of headship. We know that, at least in London and other great cities, it is now extremely difficult to find a good head teacher.
	In our previous debate on community cohesion, as in so many debates on this Bill, we once again placed responsibility on the teacher and on the head teacher. If you add up the responsibilities that we now place, morally and legally, on head teachers, it is hardly surprising that so few people are willing to come forward to bear such huge burdens, with so little assistance. The evidence is clear that without the support of local authorities and their inspectors and the support that one gets from a good county hall, it becomes even harder to become a head teacher—and that becomes a very lonely activity indeed. We have not begun to thank our teachers and head teachers for the huge endeavours that they have made and for their successes that they have to their credit, whether in secular or faith schools.
	We have a brilliant, articulate and extremely helpful Minister. If he was not there, this Bill would have had a very much rougher time getting through the two Chambers of Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, whose honesty always gets the better of him, has implied, quite a few passionate critics of the Bill have decided that the better course is simply to stay away and let it happen, because they feel that it would be futile to try at this late stage to change it by more than minor ways.
	In my view, this Bill will prove to be a disaster. There will be constant competition under it. The fine words about fair admissions and all the rest are, I am sure, sincerely meant, but they will turn out to be in conflict with the deep, underlying principles of the Bill, including sponsorship of trust schools, introducing the private sector, and so on. It will be very difficult to square that circle.
	I end on a personal note. It is incredible that a Labour Government should be bringing forward this Bill. It is more than incredible; I find it heartbreaking.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in paying tribute to the outstanding work of our head teachers and teachers in all types of schools up and down the country. I see that work day in and day out. I visit schools frequently and make no discrimination between the successes of different categories of schools. All of them are equally community minded, whatever their formal legal status, and it is absolutely right that we should pay tribute to them. It is fair to say that no Government in recent times have given them more practical support than this Government in terms of resources to enable the profession to succeed, its pay, its training—and in terms of its numbers, given the sheer size of the teaching profession, which has grown substantially in recent years and is vital to teachers being able to do their jobs.
	So I hope that those big issues of principle that the noble Baroness mentioned do not turn out to be the great divisions that she described. I continue to believe that many of her concerns are due to misapprehensions as to the design and effect of the policies that we are talking about. She repeated the view, which she articulated powerfully in Committee, that only community schools—that is, schools in the legal category of community schools, which is simply one characteristic of their governing bodies' formation—could be relied on to act in a community-minded spirit. I deny that contention. There are effective schools in all categories that are extremely good at promoting community cohesion.
	I also pointed out to the noble Baroness that a disproportionate number of schools that offer low standards of education—which, frankly, neither she nor I would find acceptable for local communities—have the legal status of community schools. If only we have the determination to be bold in this area, it is absolutely within our power to see the development of many more successful schools serving communities honestly without fear or favour in the way that she would wish. We could have many more such schools if we were prepared to see the further development of mission by schools, including more flexibility in their governance, which is what trust status brings about.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I draw to the Minister's attention that the amendment is precisely about the authorities that are rated by his own department and by local authorities as being either excellent or good. We are not talking about what are admittedly poor schools, whether in the private sector, among academies or, for that matter, among local authority schools.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Baroness, that is precisely what we are talking about. The Secretary of State will exercise his discretion in deciding whether or not to allow competitions to be entered into by community schools, precisely with a view to seeing that current weak or failing schools are replaced by ones with a much better prospect of success. That is where most of these competitions are going to come from.
	If I may say so, I think that the noble Baroness is confusing the status of the local authority in terms of its performance assessment, which is a judgment on the local authority at large, and the precise set of circumstances that apply in respect of the individual school competitions, many of which will be to replace existing weak or failing schools. With regard to the latter, it might be absolutely appropriate for the Secretary of State to wish to see a greater diversity of proposals coming forward rather than for the local authority to promote a community school where the set of circumstances surrounding the school to be replaced would lead the Secretary of State to judge that other proposals would have a much better chance of producing a successful school.
	For those reasons, we do not believe that the amendment should be supported. The clause as drafted puts the details in regulations, and the draft regulations specify that only authorities with an annual performance assessment rating of four should be allowed an automatic right to promote community schools in competitions. For other authorities, as I said, the Secretary of State may well give consent for community schools to be entered into competitions, but we believe that that judgment should be made on a case-by-case basis, specifically because we want to see effective action taken in areas where standards are low and where there is insufficient diversity in the provision of schools. We do not believe that it is inappropriate for the Government to play that role in areas where educational standards have not been sufficiently high or where choice for parents is inadequate. For those reasons, we invite the House to disagree with the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I point out again that the amendment relates only to whether local authorities are allowed to put a proposal on the table. By no means are these proposals about always replacing poorly performing state schools. Frequently, they will be proposals for a new school where housing estates are expanding on the edge of a large community. As we know, somewhere in the region of half a million new houses are due to be built in the south-east of England. Many new schools will be required to meet the needs of those housing estates. As I said, the competition will be open to anyone to put forward proposals, and the question is whether the local authority should be allowed to put forward such proposals.
	We have whittled down our amendments. We have accepted the Minister's view that poorly performing local authorities should not be allowed to put forward such proposals. We now propose to him that authorities which are rated either good or excellent in local government performance terms and are judged to be performing well in general should at least be allowed to put forward proposals.
	These are democratically elected local authorities. Why do we have elections? We have them so that people represent us locally when it comes to spending our council tax on such things as education. It is right and proper that such local authorities should be allowed to have a view on what best represents their interests; it is right and proper that they should be allowed to put forward such proposals. If they did so, decisions would be taken by the schools adjudicator, outside the range of the local authority concerned, because the authority would obviously be an interested party if it had put a proposal on to the table.
	It is demeaning to local authorities which are generally judged to be performing well to suggest that they should not be allowed to put forward such proposals. We would like to test the opinion of the House on this issue.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 207.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 37 [Staff at foundation or voluntary schools with religious character]:

Baroness Turner of Camden: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 28, line 11, leave out subsection (1).

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. I am a secularist and a humanist. I am an honorary associate of the National Secular Society and a vice-president of the British Humanist Association. However, I believe in the right of everyone to believe in and to practise the religion of their choice. I am glad that we live in a very tolerant society and I want to keep it that way. I think that those without religious beliefs also have rights, but I object when people with religious beliefs seek to impose those views and their lifestyles on people who do not share them. That is particularly unacceptable when it comes to employment. Our amendments are all about that.
	Unless Clause 37 is amended or removed altogether, discrimination based on religion will become lawful for head teachers in voluntary-controlled religious schools that are controlled by local authorities and for teaching assistants in faith schools controlled by churches. In future, if this clause stands, it will permit the requirement that head teachers be reserved teachers and it will be possible for them, however talented, to be discriminated against on grounds of their religious opinions, their attendance or not at worship, and even their private lives where none of those issues has hitherto been of any concern.
	What is the reason for those changes? The Minister referred to the,
	"constructive dialogue that we have had with faith communities".—[Official Report, 17/10/06; col. 737.]
	What consultation has there been with those representing persons who could be disadvantaged? Surely the person appointed should be the best qualified professionally to do the job rather than one who is or claims to be religious? What transitional provisions will there be for those already employed in regard to transfers or promotion? Even assuming head teachers' security is not threatened in their present appointments, the career progression of non-religious teachers will be blighted. Competent and aspiring teachers will not be able to seek promotion unless willing to become, or at least pretend to become, a believer in an appropriate religion.
	Clause 37 also makes it lawful for there to be discrimination on a religious basis in regard to non-teacher posts in voluntary-aided schools. It may be claimed that that will not apply to all non-teaching jobs because of the requirement in employment regulations that there should be a genuine occupational requirement, but the extent to which discrimination is permitted under the requirement is largely untested. Many of the staff involved will be relatively poorly paid. Alternative jobs in the same locality may be hard to find and the difficulty and expense involved in challenging an attempted reclassification may be almost impossible for them. Moreover, reclassification of such jobs, perhaps calling them pastoral assistants, if they are told to hand out prayer books, may be fairly easy for an over-zealous religious administration.
	From such inquiries as I have been able to make in the limited time since the Bill was amended to include Clause 37, I gather that there has been no consultation with the teaching unions, or with the GMB, the union to which many of the non-teaching staff belong, and yet those changes will affect many employees, immediately in some cases and into the future. They would appear to be contrary to the EU employment anti-discrimination directive and also possibly to the requirements of our own sex discrimination legislation. It is understood that Catholic schools are already having difficulty in recruiting sufficient head teachers of their faith. I also understand from the general secretary of the National Union of Head Teachers that there is already a shortage of head teachers. Indeed, he says, the situation is reaching crisis point, and he asked whether the Government are aware of that.
	Church attendance has been declining and that trend seems set to continue. Clause 37, unless removed or amended, will increasingly privilege a dwindling group of religious teachers while discriminating ever more acutely against the majority who are non-religious. That is even more unacceptable in the light of the stated government policy that new faith schools should be inclusive and should offer places to pupils from the families of other faiths or none. The funding will come from taxpayers, an increasing number of whom are secular.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, speaking on Report at cols. 718 to 719, seemed proud of the fact that the Church of England schools are community schools. We heard more about that this afternoon. He referred to them as neighbourhood schools. He supported the idea of25 per cent of places being available to the new schools on the basis of local rather than religious priority. I am sure that many noble Lords were pleased to hear that. Of course we welcome the idea of neighbourhood schools, but that is surely all the more reason for not discriminating when it comes to employing school staff. Surely professional ability, commitment and competence must be the criteria on which school appointments are made.
	If the Bill becomes law, including Clause 37, in a short space of time all the new faith schools will employ, in any capacity, only staff who are or profess to be believers in their faith. Then it may gradually become the norm in existing faith schools, which will add to the divisiveness that the Government are anxious to avoid. I hope that the Minister will agree to reconsider the clause and that there will be consultations with the unions representing those who are likely to be disadvantaged before proceeding further with the changes envisaged.
	The Minister this afternoon paid tribute to the outstanding work of head teachers and teachers generally. I hope that he will bear in mind those achievements when considering the clause. I beg to move.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, I have put my name down to the amendment. I have been involved in race relations since the mid-1960s, when we had the first Race Relations Act. During the 40 years that have elapsed, we have constantly sought to try and make it impossible for people to discriminate in employment on the basis of race. We have fought against the notion that a certain type of job requires a certain person of a certain colour. Here we are looking backwards and saying that all jobs could be requiring a certain person of a certain faith. I find it extremely strange that we should be sitting here today and debating the issue. I thought that once we had put it to bed in race relations we would have put to bed the whole notion of discrimination on the basis of jobs.
	The idea should be that if we want an RE teacher we can say that if the person is not of the faith that they are going to teach, it may be difficult for them, but I was an infant teacher with the ILEA and it asked for no requirement of any kind. Although it was a Church school, I was allowed to teach RE in the school. Now we are saying that all sorts of people could be discriminated against in jobs in a faith school, I feel that this is another serious reason for reconsidering what we are doing and where we are going. What will come next? I know that today we will not allow the provision to pass. Proper consultation should have been held with the unions. I am amazed that they have not raised a hue and cry: they should have. I hope that the Minister will take note.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend's amendment because I believe that we have created a tangled web here and that it does not have any place in law. I have two brief but important concerns. First, if this were law, people may be inclined to pretend to be something that they are not—that is, religious—to get the job or to retain a job. The reality of the clauses is a signal to faith schools that they can build requirements into job specifications, leaving the unsuccessful candidates to bring tribunal cases challenging the faith school. As we all know, appeal cases are very difficult. There is no statutory agency in this case to provide support for claimants. That is why I am so concerned to support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, my name also appears on the amendment and is attached to a letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, addressed to the Minister and the Secretary of State, dated 20 October, asking for replies to be given to us before Third Reading. As we have not yet had that reply—I am very sorry that the Minister has not been able to address his mind to the important questions put to him by noble Lords then—I shall repeat some of the questions that were asked.
	First, I must point out that, although the clause may not be contrary to the letter of the employment directive, it is certainly contrary to its spirit. For that reason, it is highly objectionable. From speeches already made from every Bench of this House, your Lordships will understand that it is a matter of tremendous concern that the Government should have introduced proposals such as this, which run contrary to what we have all agreed are ways to remove discrimination throughout Europe—in this country, in particular.
	The first question that we asked the noble Lord and the Secretary of State was what consultation there has been about the proposals. We now understand from the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that the trade unions principally concerned in the matter knew nothing about them until the last moment.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, that is simply not true. They were thoroughly consulted, as I shall set out in my reply.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, all I can say is that the trade unions have now said that they object strenuously.

Lord Adonis: Again, my Lords, that is not the case.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry, but there is a difference of opinion between us on this, because the noble Baroness has spoken to trade unions during the past couple of days and has their authority to make statements on their behalf in the House. If the noble Lord is now saying that the noble Baroness hasgot that wrong, there is, at the very least, a misunderstanding between us on the question.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, this is a very important point. We met our social partners with whom we discuss these matters, which includes teacher associations, last Thursday, and they were supportive of the changes that we were making. They had been consulted about the matter previously, so they had previously supported the proposals. Because they read the coverage given to the matter last week, when they were updated on the amendments laid in the House, they were also supportive last Thursday.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness tells me that she has consulted at least two of the principal trade unions and that they have both expressed their opposition to the proposals. We cannot deal with these matters across the Floor of the House when there is such a fundamental conflict of evidence between us. We shall have to refer to what the trade unions have actually said, not what the noble Lord tells us they have said behind the scenes or in consultation. As I say, there is a conflict of evidence that we cannot resolve in this debate.
	We would like to know what other consultations, apart from those with the trade unions, the Minister has undertaken, because the process between the appearance of the proposals on the Marshalled List and their embodiment in the Bill was rapid. I do not believe that sufficient opportunity has been given to all those concerned to consider the effects that they may have. What research has the Minister and his department conducted on the effect of the proposal on employment in rural areas, which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned? Where there is no choice of employment, it will be very difficult for teachers and there will be a particular difficulty for those who aspire to be head teachers. My noble friend Lady Williams was during the previous amendment paying tribute to head teachers and saying how difficult it was to secure really good ones. The Minister and his Government will make it far worse, because he will rule out many people who are still best qualified to match the needs of the appointments.
	What study has been made of the likely effects of the Minister's proposals in areas where the local school is the only employer of any size and those losing their jobs or unable to obtain jobs because of the proposals in the clause are likely to suffer severely? Perhaps he would also answer the question put obliquely by the noble Baroness: how is a judgment to be made about a genuine occupational requirement? So far in this debate, it has been suggested that we do not know how far that will extend, but it will certainly mean that the jobs of teachers are under threat. Will it then extend from them to other people in faith schools? How does the Minister justify that under the employment directive?

Lord Peston: My Lords, I intervene subject to the approval of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, whom I hope does not object to my speaking a second time.

Baroness Buscombe: Not at all, my Lords.

Lord Peston: Well, my Lords, the noble Baroness objected when I last spoke, saying that if I had not taken part in the whole of the earlier debate, I should not speak. I am just being nasty to her in the hope that she does not say it again. In case that she does not understand that I am being nasty to her, I am.
	My intervention is largely interrogative. When I read the Bill as it is before us, before the amendments, it was difficult to follow precisely the meaning of Clause 37. My main hope is that my noble friend will be able to tell us that it does not mean what it seems to mean. So, if I may, I shall put my speech as a series of questions.
	My first question is: if we take a religious school of a particular religion that is advertising for a geography teacher, where I can see no religious content as relevant, will it be legal in the advertisement for the job to specify that only people of whatever faith—whether Jewish or Muslim—need apply? Will that be legal from now on—or, at least, will it be legal at the interview to say, "Oh, by the way, apart from having a degree in geography, are you actually a believer in the religion of the school?"? It is difficult to see from the Bill what is the answer to that question. Our fear is that that will be legal, which is why the amendments had been tabled.
	If we go even further, and talk about the school caretaker, will the school be able to ask the school caretaker, "Are you Jewish?"? If the reply is, "No, Jews are not caretakers. That is not the sort of thing that Jews do, so I am not Jewish", can the school then say, "You cannot be in this school"? My hope is that the Bill does not allow anything like that to occur—sorry, that was meant to be a joke.

Lord Winston: My Lords, it is a gratuitous comment. I must emphasise that a large number of Jewish schools have a huge number of non-Jewish teachers and staff who do an excellent job, including teaching Romeo and Juliet.

Lord Peston: My Lords, if I may say so, that is the whole point of the amendment. The point is: will it be legal for people to change from that position? Why would anyone want to? That is what I do not understand: where is this coming from? Why was the Bill changed to move in this direction?
	When I was at school, I was taught maths by a Communist. We knew that he was a Communist because he had a hammer and sickle lapel button—this was during the war. It was legitimate to do that sort of thing in those days. I do not recall any of our maths teaching being distorted by the fact that we were being taught by someone wearing a hammer and sickle and I cannot understand why the teaching of the main subjects in the school should have any relevance to the religion of the teacher.
	It may well be that I am being ultra-sensitive here and that my noble friend will say that that cannot possibly happen. One of the great ways in which we have moved forward in this country—very much under new Labour, let me say—is that people are meant to get jobs according to their merits and being the best candidate for the job. The old-boy system, which many of us, when we were young, knew dominated what went on in the world—that should now include the old-girl system—has, at least to some extent, gone. It is certainly not acceptable to make it explicit.
	I remember when I was starting as an academic that there were certain professors whom, if you could not get them to support you, you could not get an academic job at all. Those days have now gone. I am merely asking the Minister to assure us that that is the case. For example, I would honestly expect that the head teacher of the Catholic school would be a Catholic. I follow my noble friend in being in favour of religious freedom and that would not offend me at all. However, let us assume that the best possible person for the job was not a Catholic. Are we absolutely certain that person should never be considered for the job? I am just not sure. But certainly for the ordinary teachers, let alone the people who do the other work, this should not run.
	My last point in asking where this is coming from is that, to my pretty certain knowledge, the one religion for which this has never been a problem over a long period has been the Church of England. The Church of England, on the whole, has tried to appoint the best possible teachers for its schools, just as—and we were discussing this earlier—it has been much more welcoming and much less concerned about whether all of the pupils are Church of England believers. I repeat: who is driving the desire to do this sort of thing? My hope is that the Minister will be able to say to us that there is no problem here and that none of the existing legislation which is meant to stop sexual discrimination and other forms of discrimination is now, in some sense, removed. I am hoping he will tell us that and I wait to hear his answer.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, I shall intervene only briefly because reference has been made to Church of England schools. A lot of the fears that have been expressed are unfounded; these are two very modest amendments. They clarify the situation in regard to controlled schools, where the majority of those on the governing body are not Church members or foundation members, and the majority of the governing body would have to agree that the head teacher could be a reserved teacher. Currently under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, governing bodies have not been able formally to take into account the religious belief and practice of a candidate, but they have been able to appoint on the basis of the person's fitness and ability to preserve and develop the religious character of the school. So if the governing body feels that in order to do that, they have to be a believer, this would allow them to do it.
	The second part of the provision refers to aided schools and reflects a situation where what has in the past applied to teachers now needs to apply in some circumstances—again with the support of the governing body—to classroom assistants and others who were not covered by the previous legislation. So it is a tidying-up amendment. I say very firmly that it has certainly not been the intention of my colleagues in their discussion with the Government to havea negative impact on the circumstances of the employment of anyone working in a Church school, or indeed to be discriminatory in the way that it is applied. I hope I can allay some of those fears and I am sure the Minister will do so as well.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue properly. Noble Lords will recall that when this issue came before us extremely briefly at an early stage of the Bill, I said nothing about it because it was grouped with a whole lot of other amendments about faith schools and the very fundamental matter of whether the school assembly should be of a broadly Christian nature. At the end of a three-hour debate, I felt it right to confine my comments to those issues.
	However, if the noble Baroness chooses to put this amendment to the vote, we on these Benches will support her, and not because we misunderstand the situation as it now stands—with due respect, I think that perhaps one or two noble Lords do misunderstand it. The situation now is that we have the 20 per cent reserved quota and that is not being increased. The Government's measures, as introduced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough—as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, might know if he had been here on Report—allow the composition of that 20 per cent to be changed slightly.
	I know of very few faith schools that do not already have a head teacher of the faith. Therefore, I really wonder why this is needed at all as regards head teachers. What does concern me is that a well qualified head teacher might be passed over for a less well qualified head teacher who is of the faith if this post is chosen to be reserved by the school. At a time when we are desperate for really good head teachers with the qualities of leadership, inspiration, understanding of young people, hard work, creativity and innovation about the curriculum, we do not want to exclude anybody who is really well qualified to lead a school just because they are not of the faith.
	I am also a bit concerned about some of the other posts that might be included in the Bill. Some of these posts are not well paid and the people applying for them may find it quite difficult to move or to go elsewhere to get those jobs. I do not accept the arguments that this is going to mean that thousands more teachers are going to be discriminated against. But we are nothing if not consistent on these Benches and when the School Standards and Framework Act came before Parliament in 1998, we sought to delete Sections 58 and 60, which brought in these quotas in the first place. We are against these quotas and we continue to be so. Just because this changes the quotas, that does not make them any more acceptable to these Benches.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I appreciate the strength of feeling of my noble friends against faith schools generally. That is a perfectly proper view for them to hold and I respect it. With respect, however, I point out that they have hugely exaggerated the impact of these amendments. I hope I may explain how, but itis simply not correct that there has not been consultation.
	Voluntary-controlled schools are religious schools. They are schools which are maintained almost entirely by the Church of England because of their faith character. The issue at stake is a legal uncertainty about whether the head teacher of schools that are already Church of England religious schools can or cannot be appointed with reference to a faith requirement. As the right reverend Prelate said, it appears that it is possible to do that at the moment but it is not absolutely clear. This amendment clarifies the fact that a Church of England voluntary-controlled school is actually able to appoint its head teacher to maintain the ethos of the school.
	However, even under this amendment, and this is at the discretion of the governing body—of course the governing body will make a decision about whether this is going to lead to a dearth of candidates—it is highly unlikely that a governing body is going to pass over an outstanding candidate because of the faith requirement if they believe that the need could be met in a different way. The amendment allows only heads to be reserved teachers, even in voluntary-controlled schools, where they also teach religious education, which particularly meets the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who said she could accept that there would be a case for it where these teachers in question teach religious education, but not beyond.
	It is specifically because of that factor that we allow these reserved posts to come about. The case which has been made to us particularly applies to primary schools because a large proportion of voluntary-controlled schools are primary schools. Not having this flexibility at the moment is making it difficult for small primary schools, which are a large proportion of voluntary-controlled schools, to adequately arrange their teaching staff to ensure that they have sufficient teachers who can maintain the ethos of the school and teach religious education in those schools.
	To reiterate the point of the right reverend Prelate: if a school chooses to appoint the head teacher as a reserved teacher, this appointment will count towards the one-fifth of the teaching staff who are already permitted to be appointed as reserved teachers under the 1998 Act. I know the noble Baroness does not approve the 20 per cent requirement at the moment but this does not expand that requirement at all.
	I believe that this is a modest amendment which clarifies the existing law in respect of faith schools. There is no great plot here to introduce faith requirements for the head teachers of other schools. I would also like to stress that our proposal will include transitional provisions in the commencement order for Clause 37 to provide that the change toSection 60(6) will not take effect for any non-teaching staff in post at the date of commencement. The unamended Section 60(6) will continue to apply to such staff, and also to head teachers who are in post at the moment.
	The other amendments that I have tabled refer to staff other than teachers to whom it is now permissible to apply a faith test. The case for those amendments is very simple. Since the 1998 Act, particularly in the past two or three years, there has been substantial reform of the workforce in schools to provide for many more support staff and to encourage schools to diversify their workforce so that a wider range of staff can carry out the wider range of activities that we want to see. That includes, not least, the Every Child Matters type of agenda, which will require pastoral staff and all kinds of other support staff. We also need staff to carry out the clerical and administrative jobs that have hamstrung teachers for too long.
	As those reforms have taken place, we have been concerned to ensure that voluntary-aided schools are not unduly restricted in their capacity to use a religious test in appointing support staff who have a pastoral mission directly related to the school ethos, in exactly the same way as they can appoint teachers.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that schools can very easily implement the greater flexibilities of the workforce agreement without restricting such posts to members of staff of a particular faith?

Lord Adonis: No, my Lords, I will not. It is perfectly reasonable for a school to believe that pastoral duties should be conducted by a member of a particular faith, but under the law at the moment it can impose that requirement only if the member of staff is a qualified teacher and not support staff. That is ridiculous inflexibility because it does not restrict the right of faith schools to discriminate; it simply says that they can discriminate only in favour of teachers.
	The amendments would enable voluntary-aided schools to take advantage of the wider workforce reforms that enable support staff to play a bigger role, and to apply the same test to them. But the crucial point is that schools must do so only where they believe there is a genuine occupational requirement.

Lord Peston: My Lords, the phrase "genuine occupational requirement" is precisely what I was asking the noble Lord about. Let me give an example. Regrettably, there is a need for remedial English teaching in some secondary schools, which will undoubtedly involve assistants. Will it be legal to bring to bear a person's faith in deciding whether to appoint them as an assistant? The noble Lord has not answered me with a straight yes or no.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I cannot say yes or no, because it would depend on the individual job description.

Lord Peston: My Lords, there is no difficulty with a job description for remedial English teaching: it is to help children learn English. What does that have to do with a person's religion?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, it is quite commonfor schools to appoint people with multiple responsibilities, as the noble Lord will know when he visits schools. However, to exercise this power, there must be a genuine occupational requirement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about consultation. We consulted our social partners some time ago through the workforce agreement monitoring group, which includes the NASUWT, the Association of School and College Leaders, the ATL, the PAT, the GMB, Unison and the T&G. The official who services that group sent me an account of its meeting last Thursday and the previous meeting during which it discussed the issue. I shall read it out so that the noble Lord can see that there has been full consultation:
	"We initially discussed this with partners some time ago, and they were supportive of the measures being taken. However, they were somewhat alarmed following the misleading reports last week"—
	in the media, following the campaign against this proposal, to which my noble friend referred—
	"so we updated them at WAMG last Thursday as to what the amendment actually did. They were all content—NASUWT commented that they were at a loss to see what all the fuss was about. They all recognise that these were minor amendments that were a sensible response to ensuring remodelling took place in VA schools, and that VC and religious foundation schools were not unnecessarily hamstrung as to what role their head could play".
	That is the reality. I invite the House to stand by these changes.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response but I am not entirely happy about it, and other noble Lords have also raised questions. In particular, I cannot see why there seems to be an acceptance that it would be possible to exclude very good head teacher candidates on the basis that they were not of a particular faith. We want head teachers with ability and the necessary professional qualification rather than their necessarily always having the religious one. I am not convinced by the Minister's response that that would always be the case.
	There is a great deal of legal uncertainty about the term "genuine occupational requirement". It seems that in plenty of cases there would be a reclassification which would have to be tested at an employment tribunal, and perhaps beyond, because the individuals concerned would be relying on the EU non-discrimination requirements and so on. All that would impose on individuals a great deal of difficulty and expense.
	I am surprised at the Minister's remarks about the unions. The information I have had over the weekend is that there is a great deal of concern about the amendments to Clause 37. I quoted the general-secretary's remark that there could well be a "crisis situation" because of a shortage of appropriate and suitably qualified applicants for head teacher posts. He asked whether the Government understood that the amendments to Clause 37 would make the situation that much more difficult. In addition, I understand that the GMB is very concerned about the pressure that will be exerted on non-teachers.
	I am not terribly satisfied about what has been said this afternoon—so much so that I feel inclined to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 175.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
	Clause 38 [General duties of governing body of maintained school]:

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 28, line 24, at end insert-
	"( ) The governing body of a maintained school shall, in discharging their functions relating to the conduct of the school-
	(a) promote the well-being of pupils at the school, and (b) in the case of a school in England, promote community cohesion."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 28, line 25, leave out from "discharging" to "have" in line 26 and insert "those functions"

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am pleased to bring these amendments to your Lordships' House. At Report, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Morris, I undertook to consider further how we might address the role of schools in promoting pupil well-being. This includes, among other things, their responsibility to deal with bullying and other bad behaviour by members of the school community. When we first considered this amendment in Committee, we said that we were concerned about placing statutory duties where levers already exist. We argued that Ofsted already inspects schools, using a framework that requires consideration of the delivery of the five outcomes in Every Child Matters, and that school improvement partners would also support and challenge schools on their contribution to the five outcomes.
	However, following the extremely productive debate we had on Report, with excellent contributions from many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Morris, I was persuaded that there is real value in sending a message to teachers and other professionals working with children that raising educational standards and promoting pupil well-being are mutually reinforcing. Stating unambiguously in primary legislation that school governing bodies have a clear duty to promote well-being will help to speed the delivery of the undoubted premium on school standards that arises from the improved well-being of pupils. For all those reasons, we are glad to bring these amendments forward. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to welcome this pair of amendments, along with Amendment No. 7 which goes with them. At the risk of sounding a little ungracious, perhaps I may say that they have been a long time coming because they result not just from our debates on bullying and other issues related to well-being in the current Bill, but right back to the yawning gap left in the Children Act 2004 when Members on these Benches tried to ensure that schools were not just inspected on the extent to which they contributed to the well-being of the child, but that they had such a duty in the first place. I think that all noble Lords have accepted the importance of the well-being of the child as a factor in how well that child will do in his education, and that these amendments will fill that gap.
	On Report, in hinting that he was about to bring these amendments forward, the Minister said that he felt they would meet my concerns on the issue of bullying—and they do to a great extent, but not completely. That is not to say that I do not welcome them—I do. But I should like to explain what I mean.
	The amendments refer to the well-being of children. In my speech on Report, I said that I felt that the references to bullying already set out in the Bill are not sufficient because they focus on the school's behaviour policies in relation only to children, but that what is needed is a set of policies that would affect the whole school's ethos and the whole school community—adults and children alike—to generate a climate of mutual respect between children and other children, adults and other adults, and adults and children.
	There is an issue that I should like to bring to the Minister's attention concerning the modern technology that allows short video clips to be posted on the internet, particularly on a website called YouTube. I understand that it is being used to bully teachers. Children are bullying teachers by taking pictures of them without their permission, sometimes in not very flattering situations or when they are actually being abused by the children, and putting them up on the internet along with some very derogatory personal comments. This includes the homophobic bullying of teachers by children.
	Although I warmly welcome this group of amendments and what they do in relation to children, they do not cover some of my concerns about adults who work in a school. If one adult bullies another adult, disciplinary measures may be taken concerning the standards of the adult's behaviour. However, those professional disciplinary measures do not apply to a child. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us in responding to these concerns what might be done to encourage schools to generate a climate of mutual respect so that this sort of thing does not happen again. I am not asking the Minister to ban it. We can ban far too many things, and a ban on something to do with the internet is completely unworkable. But I would like to hear the Minister's thoughts on what can be done about this serious and important issue.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, on the treatment of school staff, which I take to be the noble Baroness's concern beyond these amendments, I am advised that although the amendments refer to the well-being of pupils, the duty to promote well-being applies to the governing bodies of schools at large. We regard it as inconceivable that they could be acting in accordance with those duties if they did not also take account of the issues referred to by the noble Baroness—the maltreatment or bullying of individual members of staff. So while the amendment is couched in terms of the well-being of pupils, I hope that the wider concerns she has outlined, the force of which I appreciate, are also met. But, as she says, there is always a limit to how far one can go in legislation. We can impose duties on school governing bodies and school leaders, but ultimately we have to trust them to act in the best interests of their communities.
	Putting the duty of well-being into the Bill will have a declaratory force, but when it comes to issues such as the treatment of one member of staff by another, we have to trust to the good sense and leadership of head teachers and their management teams.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 28, line 30, at end insert-
	"( ) In this section "well-being"-
	(a) in relation to a pupils at a school in England, means their well-being so far as relating to the matters mentioned in section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004, and (b) in relation to pupils at a school in Wales, means their well-being so far as relating to the matters mentioned in section 25(2) of that Act."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 10:
	After Clause 39, insert the following new clause-
	"INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS
	(1) The Secretary of State shall, within three years of the passing of this Act, appoint an independent body to review the arrangements in England relating to the admission of secondary school pupils and to make recommendations as appropriate.
	(2) The body shall be known as the Independent Review of Arrangements for Admission to Secondary Education in England, and for the purposes of this section as the Independent Review Body.
	(3) The Independent Review Body's remit shall include the workings of admission arrangements under Part 3 of SSFA 1998 (as amended by sections 39 to 54 of this Act) and new enactments under section 39(1) to (3) of this Act, and in particular it shall consider the degree to which admission arrangements are helping, or otherwise, to promote social integration, diversity and community cohesion.
	(4) The Independent Review Body shall invite representations and evidence from-
	(a) teacher associations; (b) local authorities; (c) parents and governors; (d) pupils in secondary schools; (e) employers; and (f) such other persons as it considers appropriate.
	(5) The Secretary of State shall provide the Independent Review Body with sufficient resources to enable it to commission research into the workings of the new admission arrangements and their impact on community and social cohesion.
	(6) The Independent Review Body shall report to the Secretary of State within two years of being appointed and the Secretary of State shall lay the report before Parliament within six months of receipt together with proposals detailing how he intends to implement its recommendations."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11. This is a repeat of an amendment we tabled on Report and I have to say that my arguments in its favour have not changed. Members on these Benches contend that the Government are introducing, through this Bill and the new draft admissions code currently under consultation, very considerable changes in admissions procedures. These new arrangements have been introduced precisely because the Government are worried about the degree of social segregation that has been emerging as a result of the current admissions arrangements. Since the Government now propose that more schools should be in a position to control their own admissions within the context of the local admission forum being subject to adherence to the new code of practice, and since research shows that allowing schools to be their own admissions authority has in the past led to greater social segregation, there is a strong case for reviewing how well the arrangements are working after they have bedded down for two or three years.
	On Amendment No. 11, the Minister explained at Report stage that admission forums are specifically enjoined in the new draft code of practice to promote social equity and to serve the interests of local parents and children collectively. In Amendment No. 11 we argue that these duties should be in the Bill rather than buried in the code of practice. As foundation schools are specifically required to promote community cohesion in Clause 33(6), and the new provisions in Clause 38 will require all maintained schools to do so, it is all the more logical that admission forums—which are much better placed to make such an aspiration a reality—should also have this duty provided for them in the Bill.
	I return to Amendment No. 10. The Minister has rightly said that an individual admission forum would look at the effect of the changes in their own areas and submit reports to the new schools commissioner, and that the commissioner would review the reports and then submit his own report to Parliament on how far the forums were achieving fair access after the new arrangements had been in place for two years. After the first of those reports, it would be appropriate for the Government to decide whether they needed a further independent review. We contend that since one of the main purposes of the Bill is to ensure, as stated in Clause 1,
	"fair access to educational opportunity",
	and since in pursuit of this objective the Government are introducing far-reaching changes to admissions procedures, it is only right and proper that a full, independent review of these arrangements should take place once they have had a chance to make their mark. We do not consider that the new schools commissioner, as an official employed specifically to make these things happen in the department, can be seen as sufficiently independent to conduct such a review. We need to commit ourselves now to such a review, not down the line in two or three years' time. Given the degree of concern about social cohesion that has emerged in our debates, we need an independent review even more now than we did before. I beg to move.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she was making exactly the same arguments that she made on Report. I will make exactly the same arguments in response—

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister. I know that he wants to get on, but I have a couple of—I promise—brief points to make. I commend what my noble friend Lady Sharp said, not least to those who voted in large numbers for the amendment that concerned the whole issue of community cohesion. That is because they are expecting the inspectors to have a remarkable impact. Some of us hope that that will be so, some of us are rather more sceptical. Certainly, an independent review two or three years down the road would ensure that we would discover how far the commitment to community cohesion existed in fact—in the way in which, for example, schools conducted themselves on admissions. If we believe that, then there is nothing to worry about with an independent review. If we are a little uncertain, then an independent review will enable us so to arrange and change the legislation to ensure that what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and other people have so eloquently demanded is actually going to happen.
	My first point is that those who are relying heavily on some of the amendments being made ought, in order for the Bill to carry the weight that they are giving it, strongly to support an independentreview, which carries no political baggage. It is a straightforward request that we look again at what we have just done.
	Secondly, as somebody who, like the noble Lord, has been a Minister, I am very struck by how little feedback there ever is from legislation. We pass often sweeping and very thorough legislation—I am referring not just to this Government but to any Government—but we then almost never follow up to see what has happened and how far that legislation has been justified. That is one of the reasons why we keep putting new Bills in—to replace the holes in the previous Acts. Anybody who believes, as I am sure the Minister does, in research, study and careful looking into the facts of what has happened ought to support an independent review, because we have very complicated admissions arrangements in the Bill. We also have transparent ones, but ones that are in some ways likely to conflict to some extent with each other.
	I come to perhaps my most important point. It is well known in this House that some of the crucial changes that the Government have made to the Bill, under considerable pressure from Back-Benchers in their own party as well as in other parties, were specifically to the admissions arrangements. Quite a lot of concessions were made in that regard. It is therefore important that we know how far those concessions are going to be carried out.
	In case anyone doubts that this could happen, I shall quote briefly, but also very relevantly to the amendment that we have just discussed, with regard to the issue of good and excellent local authorities. At Second Reading in another place, the then Minister, Ruth Kelly, said:
	"I have given commitments to Members that any local authority with a good track record that proposes a new community school should be able to have that proposal considered".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/06; col. 1472.]
	That was not brought forward in our previous debate but it was a specific promise by the Minister that does not appear to have been fully carried out.
	For all these reasons, I strongly suggest that we should give weight to an independent review to ensure that the various promises, changes and arrangements that have been made should actually stand the tests of fact, of research and of study. I strongly support my noble friend in moving the amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has just made a speech rather similar to the one I made just a few days ago when I asked the House to support an independent review on special educational needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said that her party is nothing if not consistent. It would have been so nice if her party had thought about this in terms of consistency. Indeed, in the Commons only last week her party had a debate on whether there should be a major review of special educational needs. The response from the Liberal Benches by the shadow Minister, or the cross-party—I think she is called—shadow Minister for children and the family, was that there should be. It is deeply unfortunate that the Liberal Democrats are now asking us to support a major review of this kind on admissions, but seemed unable to support us on something so hugely important, which in the Commons they were crying out for only last week—a major review of special educational needs.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I apologise for intervening before the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. After the very nice things she said about me earlier, the last thing that I would want to do is to discourage her from speaking. I am only sorry that on this occasion we cannot agree with the amendment. It is not that we disagree with the objective, but we believe that it is met by the arrangements put in place by the Bill as it stands. The changes that we have made will ensure that the admissions system is kept under proper review, both locally and nationally, which is the concern of the Liberal Democrats in this matter.
	Locally, the core membership of admissions forums represents a wide range of interests in the local admissions process, including schools. The reports of the admissions forums will reflect these different perspectives, ensuring that their decisions are not swayed by the views of a single group and are properly representative of the views of local stakeholders. In addition, admissions forums must act in accordance with the new school admissions code of practice. The guidance given to admissions forums gives them an unambiguous responsibility for ensuring that the admissions system promotes social equity. All schools must comply with the admissions legislation and the new school admissions code and must also have regard to the advice given to them by the relevant admissions forum. As well as that, local authorities and other schools will act as a check on the operation of unfair admissions practices. Local authorities may produce their own reports, if they so wish, and they can refer admissions practices that they regard as unfair to the adjudicator. Locally, we believe that the system is kept under proper review by the arrangements in the Bill.
	Nationally, I agree with the noble Baroness that there should be a proper process of evaluation and review. That is provided for in the role of the schools commissioner, which is a new role—the first schools commissioner has just been appointed. Integral to the role of the schools commissioner is that they should promote fair access and report on it. I quote from the schools commissioner's job description. His role shall be to,
	"monitor and promote fair access, including through producing a two yearly national review of fair access, based on national data and the annual reports provided by Admissions Forums on their local admissions arrangements and how they impact on fair access for different groups".
	We are committed to there being a proper process of national evaluation and reporting. In our earlier debates I undertook that the Government would submit to Parliament the reviews that come from the schools commissioner, so we believe that the objective of the noble Baroness is met without setting up an additional independent review process over and above that we have already provided for in the role of the schools commissioner. I hope that our objectives are shared. We believe that the ends of the noble Baroness are met by the Bill and that there is no need for these further provisions.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I say to the Conservative Benches that on our Benches we take account of the particular circumstances of the case. On the advice of a good many of the organisations involved in special educational needs, including the Special Education Consortium, we felt that it was appropriate not to ask in this particular instance for an independent review. On other occasions we have supported such reviews. On this amendment, we continue to feel that there would be a good case for a fully fledged independent review to look at these substantial changes in admissions procedures. I am very sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to agree with us. In view of the hour, the sensible thing would be not to press the amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is after 6.45 pm—

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is a convenient moment after 6.45 pm. The noble Lord's party has asked me to repeat this Statement. I am here only because the Opposition parties have asked for this Statement to be repeated. It has been known all afternoon that at a convenient moment after 6.45 the Statement would be repeated and that, with permission, I intend to do.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Baker is making the point that this is not a convenient moment after 6.45. He would like to move his important amendment. I move that we should now deal with Amendment No. 12 and immediately after that go to the Statement. We have seen on several occasions that Statements do not have to be made exactly after the given time. I have been in this House for quite a long time now and I have seen amendments being debated at length and Statements being made even an hour later. I sincerely hope we can take my noble friend's amendment now and then the Statement.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I support what has been said by my noble friend. After all, this is a matter for the House. Many of us have sat here all afternoon and it seems to me that it would be greatly unfair to a number of people—and to my noble friend Lord Baker in particular—if his amendment was not now taken.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I watched the first two or three minutes of these exchanges on the monitor and I thought it was right for me to come into the Chamber. The normal practice is quite clear: as from three o'clock this afternoon it was known that the Statement would be taken at a convenient time after 6.45. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will know, "a convenient time" is not an ambiguous phrase; it means, quite precisely, that when the group of amendments being discussed at 6.45 is completed, we then move on to the next business. If we were now unilaterally to change this practice by an argument in the House, it would not only be a question of changing normal practice but of seriously inconveniencing a lot of people. Some people are interested in the Education and Inspections Bill; others are extremely interested in the Statement; and many others, including people from outside—midwives, I might say—are very interested in the Unstarred Question which we have down for the dinner break. This would be seriously delayed if we went on to the next amendment.
	I strongly advise the House that we should continue in the normal way. No one more than I would have been utterly delighted if we had moved more quickly on the Bill. Sadly, that is not within my power. As we have no means of adjudicating on this issue—although we have a splendid Lord Speaker on the Woolsack—if we carry on with this discussion we will simply delay matters further, with the same outcome. I suggest that the House continues with the next business.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I do not want to inconvenience the House but many noble Lords present at the moment have sat through most of the education debates in which important and vital matters have been discussed. It is generally agreed that the amendment I seek to move is central to the whole debate about inclusion in schools. Quite frankly, I think many noble Lords would like the debate to continue now. It may not be for the convenience of the House to have the Statement at some time after 6.45. It is for your Lordships to decide whether you want to hear the climate change Statement now. The Statement could be taken later but the Chief Whip made a great point of saying that it is for the convenience of Members. I think that for the convenience of the majority of Members present the debate on Amendment No. 12 would be more interesting. I beg to move Amendment No. 12.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, replies, I would simply say in support of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that there has been coherence to the debate thus far and most noble Lords anticipated that we would come to a conclusion on these questions before the dinner break. Many of the points that would need to be made during the course of the debate have already been made on the group of earlier amendments, so it is not an unreasonable proposition that is being put.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not want to get involved in this. It is a matter for the business managers—and the business managers agreed that this Statement would be taken at a convenient time after 6.45, otherwise it would not be taken. As my noble friend the Chief Whip has stated, there is also the dinner break business to be considered. I do not think one can count the amount of interest by the number of people in the House. Plenty of people have been waiting for this Statement all day. They keep stopping me in the Corridor and asking me questions about it that I have not been able to answer but I am hoping that I can answer. I intend, with good will, to follow the rules that have been explained to me and to repeat the Statement that was made in the other place by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am inclined to put the Question to the House—and ask for a vote on it—that my noble friend's amendment should be discussed first. I beg to move.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, that is not quite necessary. I moved an amendment; it is for the House to decide whether I am allowed to speak to it.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, if this is self-regulation we are going to make a laughing stock of ourselves. For hours, the annunciator has made it absolutely clear to all and sundry that the Statement would be repeated. It is being repeated not because the Government want to do it—although I am willing to do it—but because in this House the Opposition Front Benches requested that it be repeated. That is the position; it is at the request of the usual channels of the two major opposition parties. That is why I am here and that is why I intend to repeat the Statement. There is no other choice. With self-regulation there is no alternative.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, with great respect, I have moved Amendment No. 12. I believe that we should proceed on that basis.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have been helpfully advised by the Clerk that the noble Lord cannot move Amendment No. 12 because Amendment No. 11 has not yet been moved. In the absence of Amendment No. 11 being moved, I am afraid we have to proceed.

Climate Change

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this seems a convenient moment to repeat the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State. The Statement is as follows:
	"With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the independent report on the economics of climate change by Sir Nicholas Stern, commissioned by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister in July 2005. This morning Sir Nicholas published his comprehensive and compelling report. I believe it is a landmark in the debate about climate change."The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly stressed that climate change is an economic, energy, security and political issue, not just an environmental issue. The Stern report shows why this is true. The conclusions of the report are clear."Climate change is the greatest long-term threat faced by humanity. It would cause more human and financial suffering than the two world wars and the Great Depression put together. All countries will be affected but the poorest nations will be hit hardest."The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action. At a minimum, a failure to tackle climate change will cost 5 per cent of global GDP. Costs could run to 20 per cent of global GDP."The window of opportunity to reverse the rise in global emissions is narrowing. The science and the economics suggest that to avoid catastrophic climate change, global carbon emissions must peak in the next 10 to 15 years."The Stern report shows how the stock of CO2 or equivalent has risen over the past 150 years to 430 parts per million. It continues to rise at about two parts per million per year. Stabilisation at between 450 and 550 parts per million would mean at least a 25 per cent cut in global emissions. For richer countries with high emissions, this would mean a cut of 60 per cent or more."Finally, climate change is not an insoluble challenge. The technologies to reduce energy demand, increase efficiency and develop low-carbon electricity, heat and transport are within grasp. The costs are manageable at around 1 per cent of global GDP. The earlier we act, across all countries and all sectors, the more we will keep costs down."Stern argues for both global co-operation and domestic action. Let me set out our initial response."First, on emissions trading, Stern argues that we must create a price signal for carbon, in particular, through the development of emissions trading schemes around the world. Emissions trading can not only ensure cost-effective reductions in emissions but could also drive tens of billions of dollars each year to put developing countries on a path to low-carbon economies. "In this area, the European Union is a world leader and it is a European solution that is key to our goals in this area. Today we are proposing that the EU commits to new targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent by 2020 and at least 60 per cent by 2050. And we are setting out our commitment to strengthen the European Union emissions trading scheme as the nucleus of a global carbon market. I will be discussing with business and environmental groups on Wednesday how we can develop a unified UK position for phase 3 of the scheme from 2012. I am sure we need to secure the long-term certainty of the scheme, extend it to cover new sectors—especially aviation—and link it to other emerging emissions trading schemes."Secondly, Stern argues for a stronger focus on technological company-operation, including the doubling of energy research and development support and a five-fold increase in the deployment of low-carbon technologies."In March, the Chancellor announced the creation of the Energy Technologies Institute, a new public/private partnership designed to co-ordinate £1 billion worth of research and development funding into low carbon energy technologies over the next 10 years. Today, we can announce two new companies will be joining the partnership, Scottish and Southern and Rolls Royce, taking total contributions so far to£550 million of funding—half Government, half private sector."Stern also identifies a specific need to develop low carbon transport fuels. That is why the UK has initiated a joint task force with Brazil, South Africa and Mozambique to promote the development of a regional sustainable biofuels industry in southern Africa. The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), which the UK launched in 2003, is now working in over 40 countries to develop policies and financing frameworks for investment in sustainable energy."At the Gleneagles G8 summit last year the UK was instrumental in establishing the Energy Investment Framework, led by the World Bank and the Regional Development Banks, to catalyse increased investment in energy efficiency and alternative energy sources, as well as adaptation. The UK Government are therefore pleased to announce today with President Wolfowitz of the World Bank, together with the four leading regional development banks, a partnership with the World Economic Forum and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development to stimulate private sector investment through the Energy Investment Framework. President Wolfowitz and the Chancellor will co-host a conference early in February 2007 to kick off the partnership. "Third is the action to reduce deforestation, which makes up 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions each year—equivalent to more than the whole of the transport sector. Forests are of great global importance for climate change and biodiversity. But they are also sovereign territory of the countries whose forests they are, and only those nations can decide what happens to them. With the governments of Brazil, Papua New Guinea, Costa rica and the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, with Germany holding the presidency of the G8 and the EU, and with the World Bank and other interested parties, we will be exploring over the coming months how to mobilise global resources for sustainable forestry."Fourth is the need for adaptation. The review suggests that richer countries must provide financial support to developing countries to adapt to the changes in climate already in train. The UK Government are strongly committed to making climate risk reduction key to development activities. Contributions to the special climate change fund (SCCF), the least developed countries fund for climate change (LDCF), and the Canadian International Development Research Centre, are additional to development finance and policy as part of this drive."In all these four areas, the UK is determined to continue to show international leadership; that drive is strengthened by our domestic leadership. To be the most convincing persuaders, we must also be effective contributors. "Between 1997 and 2005, the economy has grown by 25 per cent and greenhouse gas emissions have been cut by 7 per cent. We are exceeding our Kyoto targets and are the only country on track to double them. The ambitious commitments inthe energy review to take a further 19 million to25 million tonnes of carbon out of the economy will add further impetus to the drive to reduce emissions."We have now also decided to put in place a legislative timetable to become a leading low carbon economy. Our climate change legislation will provide a clear, credible, long-term framework for the UK to achieve its long-term goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. "The Bill will be based on four pillars. For each, we will come forward with details at the time of publication of the Bill. We are in addition determined to promote the widest possible debate in this House and across the country about the contents of the Bill."The legislation will, first, put into statute the Government's long-term goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 from 1990 levels. We will also consider appropriate interim targets. We are determined to enhance Britain's competitive position and believe that business in particular will benefit from the long-term framework that it says is so important for effective investment decisions."The new legislation will, secondly, establish an independent body—a carbon committee—which will work with Government to reduce emissions over time and across the economy. We will ensure that the committee's advice is transparent, equitable and mindful of sectoral and competitiveness impacts, including the need to secure energy supplies at competitive prices."Thirdly, we believe that targets need to be accompanied by substantive measures if they are to have credibility. This legislation will, therefore, create enabling powers to put in place new emissions reduction measures to achieve our goals. "The final pillar of the legislation will be to assess what additional reporting and monitoring arrangements are necessary to support our aims of a transparent framework for emissions reductions, including reports to this House."I believe that the House and the country owe a huge debt to Sir Nicholas Stern and his staff for their outstanding work. I believe his report should be a cause for alarm but also a cause for action. It is action that the whole Government are determined to deliver—at home and abroad".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. May I also add my thanks and the thanks of my colleagues toSir Nicholas Stern and his assistants for this landmark report which so adequately puts the problem of dealing with global warming into a proper perspective. It is better to act now than to attempt to clear up a mess later.
	The report is in considerable contrast to the Government's approach to energy matters up until now. The last energy White Paper and indeed the preamble to the latest energy review both concentrated on security of supply using traditional fuels. The contrast is even deeper with the rather extraordinary meeting between European Prime Ministers and President Putin only 10 days ago which rather appalled me—they appeared to be grovelling in order to secure supplies of gas from Russia. The question is: will we now begin to see real action to develop green fuels and thereby really tackle the issue of carbon dioxide emissions?
	All this of course illustrates the international nature of the problem and the depth of change in attitudes that will be required if we are to succeed. One only need mention three countries—China, India and the United States—to see that all too often short-termism is the dominating sentiment that is ruling policy. Developing green energy sources is apparently a very low priority for any government in the present era. It is to be hoped that Sir Nicholas' report will change that.
	In the Statement—on page 3 of the copy—there is a sentence that I found puzzling. It refers to the specific need to develop low carbon transport fuels and says:
	"That is why the UK has initiated a joint task force with Brazil, South Africa and Mozambique to promote the development of a regional sustainable biofuels industry in southern Africa".
	That may all be very worthy but I was not aware that Brazil was in southern Africa, still less in the UK, nor that half the southern hemisphere constitutes a region. This is very peculiar and I suspect it is simply a device to secure large supplies of imported biofuel, which would be a kick in the teeth for British agriculture.
	The policy is short-sighted for two reasons. First, if that were the case, transport costs would of course not be very green and, in the longer run there is not enough land—and I have said this in this House before—to produce both biofuels and food for society, so this can only be a short-term Statement. Sir Nicholas mentions the need for green fuels; there is no mention in the Statement, or in anything else I have seen, of the development of hydrogen, which is the ultimate zero emissions fuel.
	Only one domestic action is mentioned in the Statement—the creation of the Energy Technologies Institute. There is no mention of green taxation, widely floated in the media, which apparently had access to the report long before us. I recognise that that is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I would be grateful if the noble Lord could help us with a statement of principle. Are green taxes to be additional revenues for the Government, or substitute revenues? In other words, as green taxation increases—I hope it will be a carbon-based tax if we have any green revenues—will other taxes be reduced as it is introduced? Otherwise the tax burden on society will increase, which will not be very helpful at this time. Can the Minister help us on that?
	The truth is that under this Government carbon emissions have increased for five of the past eight years. It is true that the Government are still meeting their Kyoto targets, but the outlook is worsening rather than improving, and it will take very positive action to reverse the developments in the economy and get carbon emissions under control. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I welcomeSir Nicholas Stern's report. Credit must go to the Treasury for taking a brave and wise lead in commissioning it, reversing its previous stance of failing to make any switch from taxing work totaxing pollution. I congratulate the Treasury on commissioning such an important piece of work and Sir Nicholas on implementing his brief very fully.
	The Statement justly credits the EU as a world leader in showing how emissions trading can drive innovation and carbon reduction. It has not been a perfect mechanism but it has been an extremely valuable start. The report is a blueprint for further action, and not just UK action. As one would expect from a former chief economist of the World Bank, the report is a blueprint for international action. I believe that it will provide the route map for the post-2012 route that follows the first round of the Kyoto negotiations. It will be a springboard for those starting to develop a framework, not just for developed nations and the EU, but for the rapidly developing nations. I particularly welcome the point about the action that the World Bank will be taking.
	The Statement contained some interesting suggestions about deforestation. I am sure that the House will benefit from knowing more about what that will mean. There is an interesting list of the nations which will be taking part; it does not include Guatemala, Belize and Mexico—although they may be in the Coalition for Rainforest Nations—which, after the Amazon basin, have the largest area of rainforest in Latin America.
	The report will make us—as businesses, as a nation and internationally—take account of the true price of things; not just the financial price but the hidden cost. Cheap goods are not so cheap if the environmental or social costs are high and hidden—particularly, in this case, the environmental costs.
	The report is particularly important; it takes the debate out of the province of scientists and environmentalists, although of course they have a critical role to play. However, the report has made it quite clear that it is for everyone, from the boardroom to the tearoom, to think about the implications, whether it is a question of future investment for large corporations or how much water to use to fill a kettle—even, indeed, what sort of kettle.
	The "act early" message is extremely important. The past decade has been marked by inaction and emissions in some sectors have risen. Transport emissions in particular have risen under this Government. Private mileage has increased because cars have become more efficient, so the overall effect is that, given the lack of investment in public transport, emissions have increased. In passing, I congratulate Defra on its Environment in Your Pocket publication. It often comes in for criticism, but that very informative publication is exactly what the public need to play a part in this important debate.
	The other people who must play an important role are the media. I do not think that today's headlines were helpful. The Evening Standard, in particular, was scaremongering about tax rises before looked at the report. The Government could take a leaf out of the book of Liberal Democrat-controlled Richmond council; it received very positive coverage for its gas-guzzler parking charges. I hope that the media will play a responsible part in pushing the agenda forward and make every effort to be informative as opposed to publishing what was called by the IPPR report, "climate porn". Some of today's headlines could have been called the same thing.
	Stern makes a very important comment on investing in research and development. He suggests doubling expenditure, from a very low base. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about the research and development budget. It is impossible to imagine moving forward without the innovation that that research will bring. That will be key in making this a success or a failure.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I do not think I can answer everything in detail, although I would like to make one or two points. In his final point, the noble Lord referred to taxation. All I can do is repeat what was said this morning and in the other place that people should look at what the Chancellor has done. The climate change levy was offset by national insurance, and I understand that one of the other green taxes had an offset as well. This was not used as an excuse to raise more funds; it was designed to change people's behaviour. The investment in the climate change levy was offset by national insurance.
	The noble Lord mentioned Brazil. I did not say that it was in South Africa; the fact is, Brazil is the biggest, most expert producer of bioethanol fuels, and one has to share global experience. That is the issue relating to South Africa and Mozambique, which have come forward.
	The noble Lord also asked about land. We in the UK do not have enough land for all our fuel requirements. If we used all our land, we could not grow enough for our food and fuel. He implied that we would have to import all our biofuels and then said that there was not enough land for biofuels and food. No, there is not—I accept that.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, perhaps I can help the Minister. I was not referring to the situation in the United Kingdom; it cannot be done globally either.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point and apologise if I misunderstood him.
	I freely accept that there will have to be arrangements for transporting biofuels around the world. Nevertheless, a start will be made to develop a large-scale, world-class biofuels industry. This cannot be done on small plots of land, hence we are using the experience of Brazil, South Africa and Mozambique.
	The noble Lord also asked about the need for a balanced supply of energy. The energy White Paper published in the summer made it clear that we want a balanced supply. We will be using fossil fuels for a considerable time and some 20 per cent of our power comes from the nuclear industry. We have made it clear that we will not use public subsidy, but the existing nuclear supply will be phased out and the question therefore arises about replacements so that there is a balance. And it is, of course, carbon-free.
	I have not read the 700 pages and do not know if there is a mention of hydrogen. Yet—I have used this example in this House before—I have been into a dwelling in the Midlands which is fuelled by hydrogen as an experiment. There are experiments going in the UK now; they are small scale but high-level experiments and other fuels are used.
	I freely admit that I have not seen the headlines today, but sometimes the hysterical approach of the media can be counter-productive. I am not saying that every scientist in the world agrees with this, as no doubt I am about to be reminded. Yet the position on climate change, as explained today, is vastly different from what it was 10 or 20 years ago. On balance, taking the precautionary principle, we have had it set out that if we do not move on carbon—if it went up from 450 to above 550—we may not be able to get it back anyway. We have to deal with this issue. If the scientists are wrong, at least we survive. If they are right and we have done nothing about it—which we owe to the next generations—then it is a complete failure of our society.
	There will obviously be debates on this and legislation, as the Government have indicated. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said about Defra's handbook. It is incredibly easy to read, unlike some of the material put out by government departments that sometimes have a difficulty with material for general consumption. They always want to get it right, so you end up with too much detail and the message gets lost. This Defra handbook is incredibly easy to read and ought to be compulsory reading. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said about Defra doing that, and also welcoming that it was the Treasury that commissioned the report. This goes beyond the environmental aspects, as the Statement said. It is also about security, energy and finance. The report shows, in summary, that we can deal with climate change without wrecking our economies, provided we move now. If we leave it 10 to 15 years, then, as the report makes clear, we are in a no-hope situation.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could I—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry but I do not believe that, "Before the noble Lord sits down," is in order on a Statement when the Front Benchers are speaking. We now begin the Back-Bench period, in which my noble friend may try to intervene.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, how can airlines, particularly from the United States, China and India, be compelled to enforce the higher levies on carbon dioxide emissions unless there is an enforceable, international agreement? Will the Government adopt an appropriate international initiative, and when will they do so?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to refer to aviation, which is mentioned in the Statement. The intention is to get it included inthe European emissions-trading arrangement. Yet aviation is international and the issue as he put it can be dealt with only on an international basis by the international aviation authorities. This report gives the lead. Clearly some action is required and it cannot be done solely by the UK or the European Union. It requires international action, and the aviation industry is now on notice.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, on taxation, as raised by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, if the Government are going to carry the people with them in their determination to deal with climate change, it is essential that they make it clear that they will not use their response to the threat as an excuse to pile more taxes on an already over-taxed people. It is not good enough to say that once or twice in the past there has been some balancing reduction. This is a good opportunity for the Minister to give an undertaking that necessary green taxes are not going to be used as an excuse to increase overall revenue.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that is what I said. Where green taxes have been introduced by this Chancellor, they have been off-set. They have not been a means of increasing the total tax take.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind the need for some caution in the Statements they make? This is not the time to debate the Stern report—which is going to be a very important question indeed—but there will be actions which he recommends that will be unpopular. It will be vital to get popular support for such actions. There will not be popular support if the claims made are not supported by scientific evidence and are then found to be false.
	For example, it has been widely stated that Hurricane Katrina was the result of global warming. That is something that Mr Gore says in his film—although he also makes a number of statements in his film that I fully agree with. The evidence on this is not yet clear and it is a dangerous claim to make. This year, for example, there have been fewer hurricanes. Many people may say, "If global warming causes hurricanes and there are now fewer hurricanes, then there ain't no global warming". It is important that we do not make rash statements.
	The Statement says that climate change is the greatest threat faced by humanity. But climate change has always been happening. It is not climate change that is the threat; it is global warming caused by human activity and the effects of global warming, which may or may not be very serious. There is a lot of evidence that it may well be serious, and that would justify action. It is therefore important that the Government are cautious in the Statements that they make. I am somewhat worried that they have appointed Mr Al Gore, or so certain reports say, as their adviser. While there are many good things in his film, he is inclined to exaggerate and to take themost pessimistic view of everyone. He suggests, for example, that the thermohaline current is going to switch off, although most meteorologists do not think that very likely. Will the Government exercise some caution?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord, there are a few wild statements there. There is not enough time for me to rebut them. However, less than a week ago, in this House, I read from some scientific literature about the thermohaline current possibly switching off. If it does, it will not switch on again. Those documents are in the Library: it was a Cambridge Press/Defra publication from an international symposium. It is not clear that scientists say it will not switch off. That is a threat.
	The Statement said:
	"Climate change is the greatest long-term threat faced by humanity. It [could] cause more human and financial suffering than the two world wars and the Great Depression put together. All countries will be affected but the poorest nations will be hit hardest".
	This is a banal point to make, but if anybody wants to query whether something is going on out there, then just look at the leaves on the trees.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I welcome this Statement by my noble friend. Perhaps I may concentrate on transport, which is my interest. Does he agree that there is going to be a strong need to change behaviour and the way in which people and goods travel by road, rail, air, sea and whatever? Are the Government thinking of extending emissions trading to all transport, and, if so, how? My worry about emissions trading as it is at the moment is that although we have started in Europe—not on aircraft emissions but on other things—there are many stories about other member states initially giving such a leg-up to companies that may be at risk of having to spend large sums on buying emissions quota that it all becomes pretty meaningless. Does my noble friend accept that some people will get hurt to change their behaviour while others will probably benefit?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the summary makes it clear that if we act now, it need affect only 1 per cent of GDP and will not stop growth of the economy. That is one of the central messages. I heard Sir Nicholas say this morning that if we act now, growth is not at risk. There is a one-off 1 per cent change, so there need not be damage to the economy.
	I believe the Statement only referred to aviation in the European emissions trading system. There are many complaints about people flying short journeys when there are perfectly adequate railway networks; the argument against that might be that the railway networks are expensive, but that is because the flights are not paying the full cost of the carbon damage to the atmosphere. That is what this is all about: putting a price on carbon, so activities are charged for the cost they impose on the planet.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, seldom can this House have heard a Statement containing so much fantasy with so little relation to the real world. I have one specific question. It is generally agreed that China will very soon overtake the United States as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. If the Chinese insist on maintaining their current position of generating their growth on the back of low-cost carbon-based energy, what do the Government propose to do? Will they pay the Chinese to change their ways, or propose trade sanctions against them if they do not? What are they going to do, in concert with our allies and partners in Europe?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord made sweeping statements about the whole of the Stern review. I acknowledge his position, which he has held for a long time and expressed in this House, to my knowledge, on more than one occasion. I do not think that China should be put in the dock. I understand that it is opening a coal-fired power station every week. We are working with the Chinese and looking at low-carbon technology for burning that coal. They will carry on burning it, because they want to grow. There is no reason why their growth should not continue, but it could be low-carbon growth. That is the offer. The Chinese will be just as interested as anyone else, by the way, in people being flooded out of their homes, or in having no land to grow crops because it has got too hot. They are not divorced from this and we should not put them in the dock. We have to help. We are all in this together.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I confess to not having read the report. Will my noble friend tell us whether there is any truth in the report that the Chancellor has refused to allow, and pay for, the printing of the report to make it available for us?

Lord Rooker: I have no idea, my Lords. I went to the launch this morning and picked up a 30-page executive summary and a disk. I have not put the disk in anything yet; I assumed it contained the whole report. As far as I know, the report is available. It is 700 pages long. I understand that it is not available in the Printed Paper Office and I am going to find out about that. I was supposed to be given a line on that before I stood up, but I realise I have not been. I suspect that this issue was raised in the other place, but I do not think that the Chancellor is so mean as not to allow the publication of a report that will have such an impact on all our lives, both economically and socially.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I welcome the report. It is marvellous that it brings to everyone's attention that there is a problem, because for so long people have been saying there is no problem. However, following the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, it is extremely difficult for us to assess the, I think, 612-page report—but then of course there are lots of appendices we do not even know about, as they are not in the contents—by reading the Statement.
	The Minister said that if we act now, we can stop the problem. Surely that must be naïve. There is not a single mention of the word "USA" in this four-page Statement. There is no mention of China. Aviation is briefly mentioned, but surely most of the aviation in the world is in the US. How much notice will the United States, India and China take of the report? Do we not have an exalted view of our influence? I quote from the Statement:
	"The UK is determined to continue to show international leadership".
	Honestly, if, as I am told, we only contribute something like 2 per cent of the carbon emissions, is anyone going to listen?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, our contribution of 2 per cent is small. It could be argued that we do not need to do anything; that we are overshadowed, and our contribution would be replaced by some of the developing countries within 10 months. That is not a satisfactory situation when we have taken the position that, if we do not move within 10 to 15 years, the process will be unstoppable. According to the chart shown by Sir Nicholas this morning, the temperature could rise by 5 degrees—well above the 2 degrees that I understand is a turning point. We have to move on this.
	I cannot give chapter and verse about what individual countries are going to do. The report has been published today, and we want the rest of the world to have a look at it. It will be discussed in a few days' time in Nairobi at the pow-wow of environmental and Treasury Ministers, and it was partly discussed during the recent discussions in Mexico. The issue is being dealt with at a world level, not at the UK or EU level, but we are attempting to take a lead. We have a contribution to make.
	Regarding the printed report, my note says:
	"Mix-up. Full report soon".
	It also says, though, that if the report is on CD,the CDs are more environmentally friendly than 700 printed pages anyway. I do not know anyone who cannot put a CD into a computer and read from it. Grey power gets hold of computers and gets going at them better than the youngsters sometimes. However, I apologise if the noble Lord has not been able to get his copy today.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister is very good at knowing the reaction of people in the street, and in villages and towns. First, does he agree that, if this is to work, there has to be strong popular support behind it, as my noble friend Lord Taverne said, and that what the people of any country can do is address the subject of energy conservation, on which the UK has a bad record? Does he agree that there ought to be a fifth heading concerning energy conservation, which is crucial if this great aim is to be achieved?
	Secondly, does he agree, having referred to the fact that forests are the responsibility of the country in which they lie, that the idea of renting substantial parts of untouched forest land should be looked at closely in terms of the international bargain between the rich world and the poor? If we are going to save the planet we have to start by saving the forests, and in many forest lands there is no money whatever to do so.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised a practical solution that has very seductive undertones. There is clearly an issue. Sometimes people have destroyed their heritage—that is, the forest—because of money. There is no other crop, as it were. They have to be prevented from doing so, and shown the wisdom of preserving it. But they have to have alternatives. If we can sell this to our people on the basis that we can make all these changes and still grow our economy, the same must apply to everyone else. They will want to grow their economies, because they are far behind us in that respect. This issue has to be dealt with.
	I regret that I did not comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, relating to public perception. He is right: if the public are not on side, nothing will happen. Ministers talking, business acting or taxes changing to change people's behaviour will not work. It will build in resentment. People have to be made to understand that there is a major problem.
	We have an outreach programme focusing on the private sector, legislators and broader civil society. I shall briefly give some examples of what was done. In December last year, a new campaign was launched, called "Tomorrow's Climate, Today's Challenge", which included free resources; short films; a website; a communications guide; a £6 million climate challenge fund to support local level communication projects, and we expect to announce winners on 5 June; a European environment day; large-scale national activities allowing local level activities to feel part of a wider government-backed initiative to commencein 2006-07; and a youth competition to help communicate climate change in their region, in which nine regional climate change champions were announced on 11 May 2006. Work has to go on over a whole range of activities. It is not just about the media but about understanding the footprints of normal people's lives.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am old enough to remember that not long ago we were being warned of a new ice age, so we have to take that into account, too. I have two questions. First, the inexorable growth in world population is estimatedto increase by a further 50 per cent over the next30 years, I believe. Do the Government have any plans to address that problem, because if we do not deal with it, we have no hope of solving global warming? Secondly, will the Government review their policies on airport expansion, particularly at Heathrow and Stansted—and in other parts of the country? Unless the Government do that, aircraft movements will continue to rise and rise and there will be no hope of reducing aircraft emissions.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, on that last point, I cannot go beyond what I have said, other than that the Statement attempts to bring aviation into the emissions trading scheme, so that the cost of aviation pollution is paid for and will bring about a change in people's behaviour. As I said, plenty of trains are available for short journeys in this country and between this country and other parts of Europe in which one can probably travel faster than if one used the airports.
	As I understand it, forecasts of population growth are taken into account; but is it not also the case that when countries have good economies and economic growth, population growth decreases? This is a serious issue. It is a fact that we are using up the planet at a greater rate than we are creating more planet, if you like—and the planet is finite. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, half joked about a new ice age that has not yet happened, but if the Atlantic Gulf Stream closes down, we will soon know about a new ice age.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, while I welcome the Minister's assurance that any new green taxes would be matched by reductions in indirect taxation and his acknowledgment that everything depends on growth economies such as China and India buying into this proposal, could he assure us that providing leadership does not mean putting up taxes on business in this country in advance of those countries doing the same? Given the mobile nature of capital, will not business simply switch its investment into countries where there is no such levy or charge, whether it be a tax or a carbon trading scheme? How will the Government deal with that?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord has described exactly what has happened in some parts of the world in recent years. Countries have been pillaged environmentally because there has been no international agreement about what happens to their resources. I cannot say any more about what would happen as regards the effects of taxation, because they will be matters for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He commissioned this report, so it is self-evident that there are issues beyond the environment, including social, cultural, energy and conservation issues, as well as the economic issues of climate change, that, clearly, the Treasury will take into account.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Third Reading of the Education and Inspections Bill be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that that the House returns to that business not before 8.42 pm. For the convenience of your Lordships, it may be helpful to know that the usual channels have agreed that it will not be possible to begin the Report stage of the Armed Forces Bill tonight.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

NHS: Community Hospitals and Maternity Units

Baroness Cumberlege: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards community hospitals and maternity units.
	My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords for taking part in this short debate and the Minister for answering it. He is after all, according to the Health Service Journal, the fifth most powerful person in the NHS, so I am sure he will be able to answer my questions, of which I have given notice, with ease.
	The Minister and I are united in that care should be closer to home. My father was a GP. Patients came to the house and in my home we literally had blood on the carpet. Six miles from where I live we have a much-prized community hospital in which a few years ago I had successful minor surgery. My husband's great-grandfather donated a similar hospital to the people of Lyndhurst. I have given birth to two of our three sons at home, so I think I know what care closer to home, or indeed in the home, can mean.
	It was Voltaire who said,
	"if you wish to converse with me, define your terms".
	The tools of the trade for any Government are language and it is important to be precise. In July, the Government published a sequel to their White Paper, called Our health, our care, our say. It contains a diagram which defines a community hospital asone which offers multi-use community clinics, intermediate care, integrated health and social care, or is a remodelled general hospital—presumably with or without beds.
	PCTs or trusts will argue that after closing all in-patient facilities, minor surgery and minor casualty, but retaining two or three physio sessions, the hospital is still open. That is dishonest and it does not wash with the public. The public do not recognise a multi-use clinic as a hospital. They perceive the closure of in-patient beds as a significant loss of services. So, can we agree that a community hospital is, in essence, a small local hospital with 20 to 30 beds, a range of clinics, rehabilitation, a minor surgical and a minor injuries unit? Anything less is a con. Some community hospitals have other facilities such as hospice care, or birthing centres, but they are in addition to, not instead of.
	Using my definition, which is drawn from one used by the Community Hospitals Association, out of 320 community hospitals in England, 107 are under threat and 10 have closed this year alone. This has happened when the Government have explicitly stated that,
	"community facilities should not be lost in response to short-term budgetary pressures that are not related to the viability of the community facility itself".
	Community hospitals rarely exceed their budgets. Their beds cost between a third and a half of an acute bed. They are efficiently run with committed staff. The food is edible, the infection rate low and the quality of care high, because neighbours are looking after neighbours. Reputation is everything in a small community. You never know who you are going to meet in Tesco on Saturday morning.
	The public value these hospitals and recognise that they are closing to pay off other debts—and the public have taken to the streets. Angry protestors are marching across England—in Gloucestershire, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cumbria, the New Forest, Wiltshire, Shropshire and Oxfordshire. It is sad that these areas do not show up on the Secretary of State's political heat map. Few are in Labour seats. They are in market towns and rural areas—out-of-the-way places that Labour finds hard to reach. The Minister is quoted in this week's Health Service Journal as saying that some trusts are pretty inept in theway they go about consultations on service reconfiguration, presenting a fait accompli, rather than involving local people. So, being the fifth most powerful person in the NHS, and clearly concerned, what measures is the Minister going to take to ensure that PCTs listen and involve local people; and, where they have not, what is he going to do about it?
	Change requires resources. The sum of £750 million has been allocated over five years for the refurbishment and equipment of community facilities. I do not want to be ungrateful but this smacks of a Treasury initiative—Big Brother providing the wrong solution for the wrong problem. NHS LIFT and other capital schemes involving the private sector are available. It is revenue that is in short supply, not capital.
	The original benefactors, like my husband's great-grandfather, gave their hospitals to the local community. In 1948, with great generosity, they gave again to the new NHS—a health service now owned by the people. Today, that generosity is being denied to the local community. Sites are sold to pay off some remote debt unrelated to the local population. Marvellous Leagues of Friends voluntarily paint wards, make curtains and raise funds for buildings and equipment, but they cannot provide trained staff day in, day out. So, as the fifth most powerful person in the NHS, will the Minister negotiate with the Treasury to ensure that this capital fund can be used flexibly and be converted to revenue, as and when the need arises?
	I turn to the subject of birthing centres, maternity and midwife-led units. The issues are very similar. Supermarkets driven by consumer demand have realised that people want convenience, diversity and choice. Tesco and Sainsbury, having invested heavily in large stores, are now diversifying in small convenience stores, locally sited. The NHS, as always, forced into short-term expediency, is working against this social trend. It is centralising and reducing choice.
	The defence is that units close because they are not popular—that is not true. What happens is that those intent on the closure say, "We will keep this unit open but only from 9 am to 5.30 pm". Unsurprisingly, women say, "How can I guarantee my baby will respect working hours and arrive just then? I had better book elsewhere". Others are reluctant to book a place in a birthing centre which is under threat. It may not be there when the great day arrives.
	The Birth Centre Network has worked for three years to further enhance midwife-led units and establish quality standards—an initiative applauded by Stephen Ladyman, then the Minister responsible for maternity services. What progress have the Government made in funding this project?
	Today's PCTs, in turmoil, broke and pressurised to break even, see a line in their budgets and think, "Cut the birthing centre and save £0.25 million". But they fail to think of the additional costs in the high-tech maternity unit—the additional unneeded, unwanted, highly expensive interventions, not only in cash but also in health terms. Will the Minister, the fifth most powerful person in the NHS, honour the undertaking given by his colleague, Stephen Ladyman, to undertake an economic appraisal of the costs and benefits of birthing centres?
	According to the Office for National Statistics, the birth rate has been increasing for the past five years. The Government Actuary's Department predicts further increases over the 2003 birth rate. Today,18 birth centres or midwife-led units are under threat, nine have closed temporarily and three have permanently closed. In addition, other maternity units in district general hospitals are under threat. With units closing, where are these women to give birth?
	There have been shameful incidents where women in labour have been rushed from one hospital to another searching for a maternity unit—this at a time when in July Ivan Lewis, the Minister now in charge, emphasised that maternity services are a priority and that the Government will meet their manifesto commitments.
	So to my final question. The Government extol choice, which is very popular. They believe that more care should be provided closer to home, which is also popular. Therefore, can the Minister—after all, the fifth most powerful person in the NHS—explain how the Government's policies will be implemented when decisions are devolved and locally ignored?

Baroness Murphy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for bringing forward this debate today, although, unusually, I find myself in disagreement with some of what she said.
	I came here today hotfoot from a hospital closure party. We were all given pens with which to write graffiti on the hospital walls, which was an extremely popular event. The Poplar and Stepney District Sick Asylum, which opened with great splendour in 1871, closed today at St Andrew's Hospital, Bow. Not a single person was there to protest. The people in the local community are extremely pleased to lose their out-of-time, inadequate hospital and, instead, to be provided with splendid new facilities in other areas around the district and, in particular, at Newham General Hospital. It is a very popular hospital closure programme locally, as it is a community hospital that has had its day and is now developing an alternative service.
	I declare my interest as a member of the board of Monitor, the NHS foundation trust regulator, which is examining with interest and some excitement the possibility that some community hospitals and wider community health services could be delivered via foundation trust status. That would be a practical means of injecting improved local accountability and bringing better financial and managerial rigour and service innovation into the community services sector. This is a £7.5 billion industry and perhaps it needs a little more rigour to be brought to it. To justify effective governance and financial expertise in such trusts, sufficient size is important—perhaps less than £30 million would be unwise—but I urge the Minister not to get too hung up on this or on the current geography of services. It may be better to let some specialist services thrive across larger areas, rather than leave existing generic services as they are.
	In this brief debate tonight, I want to highlight three other matters: first, the need to increase the diversity of providers of community health; secondly, the importance of better commissioning of those services; and, thirdly, how crucial it is to understand the detailed costs if we are to make an impact on service delivery.
	I have lived through numerous decisions and revisions relating to the role of community hospitals. There are still 450 of them, in spite of the alarms about closure, all the way through from the traditional cottage hospital at one end of the spectrum to, at the other end, a modern, almost bedless site for outpatients, diagnostic tests, minor operations and day treatments. I believe it is possible to have community hospitals without beds. However, we need to ensure that the next generation of community hospitals is the second sort, rather than the latter, traditional sort, where many of the services can be provided rather better by independent sector nursing homes and the spot-purchasing of beds of different sorts. The recent White Paper set out clearly what needs to be delivered, but the infrastructure to deliver that vision is not in place.
	Revenue follows capital investment in the NHS, so the Government's announcement of £850 million capital investment in such schemes is very welcome. But we must pause and consider why NHS LIFT, which, as the National Audit Office pointed out recently, has been relatively successful in getting new private money invested in GP premises, has not on the whole stimulated the new-style community services or the new kind of community hospitals which the Government support. The answer lies in the poor commissioning of services. Unless we strengthen the commissioning and detailed procurement of services, acute hospitals will continue to dominate. We have seen how difficult it has been for United Healthcare to make inroads into primary health and community health services in the teeth of reactionary opposition. Can the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to strengthen expert strategic service commissioning in the development of hospitals for the future?
	I was very encouraged to see in the Health Service Journal of 19 October a commitment from the Minister to unbundling the tariff for rehabilitation services—to encourage community-based options—and for diagnostics, too. This is crucial if we are to understand what money is being spent on community health and how we can begin to spend it better. When is some definite news expected on that unbundling work, which is so crucial to delivering the services that we need?

Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for raising this debate. I shall speak about maternity units.
	Maternity services should be safe and of the highest quality, because, for more than 100 years, the midwifery profession has been regulated. Midwives are regulated by a set of midwives' rules and a code of conduct. Formal supervision of midwives takes place, with supervisors of midwives accountable for ensuring that all the rules are followed.
	There have been many changes in policy on who leads in the practice of childbirth, not least as a result of the input of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, into the Changing Childbirth report of 1993. However, whether hospital delivery or home delivery is the fashion, the priorities are a safe pregnancy, safe delivery of a healthy baby and a healthy mother. However, despite the regulations and supervision, all has not been well and we need to ask why.
	The United Kingdom is renowned for a very low level of maternal deaths. The national average is11.4 per 100,000 births, but, between 2002 and 2005, this figure rose dramatically, when, in Northwick Park hospital, 10 maternal deaths were recorded. This led to an investigation of maternity services by the Healthcare Commission. It identified common factors in nine of the 10 cases. They included: insufficient input from the consultant or a senior midwife, with difficult decisions often left to junior staff; failure in a number of cases to respond quickly where a woman's condition changed unexpectedly; inadequate resources; agency and locum staff; the lack of a dedicated high dependency unit; a working culture which led to poor working practices, resulting in a poor quality of care; failure to learn lessons in the unit—the trust took action following the deaths, but the working environment was such that mistakes were repeated—and failure by the trust board to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. The board was aware of the high number of deaths and should have acted sooner to rectify the problems.
	Sir Ian Kennedy, the chairman of the Healthcare Commission, said that the root cause of poor performance is often weak managerial or clinical leadership, which can leave problems unidentified or unresolved; in other words, the unit has become dysfunctional. As a result of the Healthcare Commission's report, an outside team was brought in to assist in rectifying the problems. It was led by Professor Arulkumaran, head of obstetrics atSt George's Hospital. A number of workforce streams were identified, requiring leadership and implementation by midwives and obstetricians. These have now been addressed. I highlight this tragic situation to demonstrate that, where no performance management of clinical care is in place and no accountability is being exercised through the organisation, up to and including the board members, tragedies such as this occur.
	Sadly, this is not an isolated case of performance management of clinical care not being exercised. Commissioned by the Burdett Trust for Nursing, a report was recently published by the Office for Public Management entitled, Who Cares Wins: Leadership and the Business of Caring. A companion study was produced to back the OPM report's findings, with evidence based on research by Plymouth University. Having studied a random sample of healthcare trust board minutes, researchers found that only 14 per cent mentioned direct clinical care.
	The OPM report demonstrates that the business of caring is a whole-board issue and it argues that, if a more market-driven health system is going to deliver a new NHS, patient satisfaction and customer care need equal ranking with finance, targets and outputs on board agendas. However, it also makes it very clear that critical organisational factors need to be addressed so that the business of caring is led and managed in a way which is clearly accountable and which seeks, and acts on, patients' opinions.
	The unanswered question that emerges fromthe work which the Burdett Trust for Nursing commissioned is: how will NHS trust boards be encouraged to balance finance, targets and outputs on their agendas with patient care? Who will be accountable and have the authority at board level for the performance management of clinical care?
	We surely cannot wait for units to become dysfunctional, whether they are maternity units, as in Northwick Park, or acute or mental health trusts. Patients surely deserve the highest-quality care delivered in the most cost-effective way. The strategy to introduce a dedicated person at executive board level who is accountable for the performance management of patient care is complicated, involving trust board executives and non-executives, as well as healthcare professionals.
	Will the Minister give his support to the concept of having a designated person at board level accountable for performance management of clinical care and consider making resources available for the training that will be required for executive and non-executive board members? A designated performance manager of clinical care would be in the interest of ensuring that care and compassion become part of the agenda and a high quality of care for patients.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate and on the way in which she posed the Question. One of the great mysteries about this Government's health policy is that they can spend so much more money and still face a barrage of hostile complaint from the public. The policy on community hospitals is an example of this. My noble friend set out the problems that are occurring around the country, which are rather more typical, perhaps I may respectfully say, than the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy.
	The Government use the remarkably ugly word "reconfiguration" of services to explain what they are doing. Basically, that means closing some facilities to develop others. They are never entirely frank in public about the implications and, particularly, the closures. On 5 July, an announcement from the Department of Health trumpeted a,
	"huge cash boost for community hospitals",
	without the press release quite making it clear that the promised £750 million was capital spending and not revenue, which is where the problems were.
	However, the department knows as well as everybody else that the general policy that it is following involves hospital closures. They are difficult decisions for any Government to take, where, at the very least, the public should be able to expect that decisions are taken absolutely objectively. This is the one point that I want to make in this short debate.
	On 3 July, two days before the "huge cash boost for community hospitals" press release, a meeting took place which involved not just health Ministers, but party political representatives of the Labour Party, including the party chairman, Hazel Blears, and political advisers from Number 10. I quote from the Times of 15 September, reporting on a number of e-mails which had come to it. The e-mails stated that Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State, called for those at the meeting to be provided with "heat maps", showing public opposition and the potential political implication of any closures. Another e-mail from Patricia Hewitt's private secretary asked for a political meeting to discuss the implications of the Civil Service submission on how services should be changed. The e-mails in the Times report went on to state that the Health Secretary wanted a political meeting to discuss the submission and that she wanted the health Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and Andrew Burnham, to attend with their advisers, as well as Ms Blears with her two advisers and two advisers from Number 10. A further e-mail from Miss Hewitt's diary secretary stated that Ms Blears had asked for a party representative to be included at the Department of Health meeting. Later, a spokesman for Ms Blears confirmed that the meeting had taken place, but said that, because it was political, there was no record of who was present. He said:
	"It wouldn't be unusual for Labour Party press officers to attend meetings with ministers".
	This is a serious matter which goes to the heart of how the Government are run.
	For six years, I was Secretary of State for Social Services and I had one special adviser. My Ministers of State—unknown people like John Major and Ken Clarke—had a no special advisers whatever. At this meeting there appear to have been six or seven special advisers. However, I find it utterly extraordinary that the Labour Party chairman, plus this array of political advisers, should be allowed to give their views on such an official submission. It is beyond belief that the Labour Party press officer should have been invited and utterly incredible that not one of the six or seven advisers actually took a note of anything that took place at the meeting. I find that simply unbelievable. Without that we cannot judge whether party political interests entered into what should have been an impartial and objective process.
	There is one man who can answer those questions: the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who was at the meeting. Will he confirm that such a meeting took place? Will he explain what he understands by "heat maps"? Will he confirm the membership of that meeting and confirm that no note was ever taken of it? Above all, how can such a clearly party-political meeting be justified to consider an official submission on such issues of health policy? Should not any policy involving closures be fair and clearly seen to be fair? Is there not a danger at the moment of the whole process appearing tainted?

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for instigating this debate and for the way in which she opened it. I declare my interest in palliative care. I wish to address hospice services as a community resource, the way in which they integrate with community hospitals, and the fact that I believe that they should be more integrated than they are.
	The in-patient beds in the community are an important resource. At the moment, in England there are 176 units, providing 2,624 hospice beds. This patient-focused community resource is effectively subsidising the NHS provision to a great extent. Last year, English adult independent voluntary hospices spent £326 million on providing services. It has been estimated that if the NHS were to provide a similar service to that provided by the voluntary hospices, it would incur expenditure of around £415 million, unless it also benefited from the equivalent volunteer input that the local community services attract and are able to motivate and maintain. But the hospices, despite the £415 million that the NHS would have incurred, received only £119 million of NHS funding, leaving about £208 million as non-NHS funded expenditure. It is worrying that over a quarter of hospices recorded a deficit last year.
	Their workload is considerable. Without them that workload would land at the door of community hospitals and the NHS. Across the UK there were more than 58,000 admissions, of whom 42,000 were new in-patients; there were 30,000 deaths and 160,000 patients were visited by home-care teams. So hospices are an important resource in the communities they serve; they provide care that evaluates well and they relieve pressure on the NHS; but they cannot and should not operate in isolation. An example of integrated care is being led in the hospice world by Marie Curie's Delivering Choice programme, which is keen to work with providers at every level. Local hospice services can provide in-reach services into community hospitals to ensure networked care. Community hospitals are not only a step down from hospitals and a step towards home, but they also provide a higher-tech environment than the hospice unit for some diagnostic and therapeutic admissions that do not need to go to a specialist or acute centre and for some drug monitoring.
	However, many in their last illness are not imminently dying and they need services and support near their homes where a local hospice does not exist. No one should forget the social cost of caring. There are more than 6 million carers throughout the UK, about 12 per cent of the adult population. The number providing support for 20 hours or more every week has increased steadily and is probably over2 million now. The number of heavy-end carers—those providing more than 50 hours of care a week—has increased at a proportionately greater rate. No one should forget that those providing this heavy-end care are twice as likely not to be in good health as those who are not carers. Those under 25 are three times more likely not to be in good health. It is also clear that mental and physical health deteriorates the longer carers continue to care, particularly when they do not get a break. I know that a third of those who have not had a break have mental health problems.
	So community hospitals need to work with their local hospice services and with other community services to relieve the pressure on carers at home. With all the powers that were highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her opening speech, does the Minister recognise the huge resource that hospices provide? Can he assure us that the Government see integration across all sectors—home, hospice, community hospital and on to acute and specialist trusts—as a priority in the new NHS so that resources are best utilised, patients receive the most appropriate care to match their needs and carers are not worn to the ground by caring at home, nor by travelling great distances to visit someone they love in an in-patient unit?

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, just before the Summer Recess, on a very hot day, a large lobby from the West Country and the New Forest campaigned for community hospitals. I was impressed by how the communities had come together. The lobby consisted of patients and their supporters, hospital staff and fund raisers. They wanted Parliament and their Members of Parliament to know how strongly they felt. All through the Summer Recess, in north Yorkshire, where I live, there has been a running campaign for the local community hospital in Ripon to stop cutting beds and for two units for elderly people with mental health problems to be retained. They also provide much needed respite care. Members of the public who know how important those facilities are have been organising petitions. The local councillors and the PCT members have been walking out of meetings and disagreeing with each other and the public have become more concerned as the Ripon community hospital has now cut its 20 beds by half, two of which are hospice care beds.
	The Government keep saying that more healthcare has to be provided by primary healthcare, but the overspend led to the shortfall in other services, including the fast response teams and nursing, causing a shortage of district nurses in the Ripon area. The out of hours doctor service at the weekends and after 7pm seems to come from Harrogate, which is 26 miles away from Masham, where I live. The local surgery operates only from 9am to 7pm with a lunch break from 12.30 to 2pm, Monday to Friday, with a half day on Thursday. The local vet service also has an out of hours service, but the vets answer emergency calls quicker than the doctors. It is not surprising that the local population in rural areas feel threatened when they see their local services diminishing and they know that people are living longer and the Government have stated that there are more people with Alzheimer's and dementias. Many of the local rural surgeries are not equipped to deal with many procedures that the Government are now saying could be undertaken in them. That is why the community hospitals have a role to play.
	The Government have given a great deal of extra money but now the question is being asked, where has all the money gone? The maternity units up and down the country seem to be patchy. I have heard high praise from two people I am involved with: first, my secretary, who had a caesarean in a County Durham hospital; and secondly, a nephew and his wife, who enjoyed a natural birth in a birthing pool in east Yorkshire. Both families had successful births and praised the attention of the midwives, but there are other units that seem to be under a great deal of pressure and I am told that there is a baby boom at the present time.
	May I ask the Minister a question particularly associated with London? It seems that there is an upsurge in births by caesarean. Is the reason for this that maternity units have become overstretched with midwives having to care for more than one woman in labour at a time and women being worried that complications will not be spotted in time and their baby will be placed at risk? As there have been some disturbing cases the risk of litigation may also be a factor. Are pregnant women told of the risks of caesarean births such as breathing difficulties and the need for specialist treatment for the babies? It also takes mothers longer to recover after the birth and they may be at a serious risk of infection. Whatever the procedure, does the Minister agree that the safety of the mother and the baby should be paramount and the safest procedure should be worked out before birth so that crisis situations do not arise?
	I was invited to visit a GP's surgery south of the river a short time ago and was told that health visitors are going to be cut. It seems worrying with a high amount of deprivation in that area. I thank the noble Baroness for airing this important topic and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for asking this Question and in this short speech I want to address maternity services. Women of my generation believed that the hugely successful campaigns for choice in childbirth had changed things. The Good Birth Guide generation would be able to give birth where and how they wished. Some wanted to give birth in warm water, some went for natural childbirth and others for home births. Some wanted an epidural; others, despite medical advice at the time, wanted a caesarean, and so on. It seemed as though things had truly changed, but towards the end of the 1990s that perception began to shift. Reform, the think tank, showed in December 2005 that women giving birth in NHS hospitals received less care from their midwives than 10 years earlier.
	To support the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the number of hours worked by midwives in NHS hospitals fell 14 per cent between 1994 and 2004. In 1994 60 per cent of midwives worked full time. By 2004 that figure had fallen to39 per cent. In addition, the Council of Deans of the nursing and health professions representing nursing and health faculties at UK universities voiced its fears in May this year that the NHS would by 2009 be stuck with a chronic under supply of nurses, midwives and other allied health professionals because ofcuts. But, as of last month, we are being told by David Nicholson that there may be as many as60 reconfigurations of NHS services, some—perhaps all—of which will affect maternity services. That runs alongside a government policy, as stated in, Our Health, Our Care, Our Community, of expanding community provision for expectant mothers. It stated:
	"We want to ensure that maternity services are women focused and family centred. This means increasing choice for women and their partners over where and how they have their baby".
	That acknowledged that women were not being able to choose where their baby was born.
	However, in, Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: making it happen, published on 18 October, there is no explicit mention of maternity services—at least, I could not find one. The Minister in another place, Andy Burnham, said that decision-making is a matter for PCTs and strategic health authorities in consultation with the local population. That may be right. Nevertheless, something strange seems to be going on here. Part of that may concern a real difficulty.
	In Stroud, a renowned local midwife maternity unit was given a last-minute reprieve last month after strong local objections to its projected closure because of local health service debts. Near where we live, in Leamington Spa, people in Banbury are up in arms about the Horton Hospital—not to mention Kidderminster, not very far away. At the same time, there are clear clinical reasons for shifting some services to specialist centres or to newer configurations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said. That needs to be much better explained or consulted on. The case of Stroud is not alone. Nor is its future assured for the long term, unless the Minister can give us those assurances this evening.
	David Nicholson said that the NHS had to tackle the "wicked" issue of maternity services. He said
	"Pregnant women would be best served by maternity departments big enough to sustain a 24-hour, consultant-led service. That would require work to be concentrated in fewer hospitals.
	For whom is that true? For all pregnant women? The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has already pointed out some difficulties that have occurred in some of those acute hospitals. How can the Secretary of State for Health announce £750 million for local people to set up and develop local community services, as she did, if David Nicholson wants to cut community maternity services, which are hugely popular—and, for women without complications, often preferable?
	If the promise is that all women will have choice over where and how to have their babies by 2009, how will what seems to be happening now with community services help; and how will the Government monitor whether it will be possible for women to choose? We seem to have two conflicting policy objectives. Since we have the fifth most important person in the NHS here—the Minister—perhaps he can explain how the Government will make that possible.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for securing this debate about these vital services.
	As the custom of this House is to talk only about subjects that one thinks one knows something about, I shall confine my remarks to community hospitals, because, for 15 years, I had the privilege and enjoyment of working in one such hospital one day a week—in Edenbridge, in Kent. It is run by five first-class GPs and is a great morale booster for the local population and staff. They have a rather revolutionary practice: they keep the place spotlessly clean. Not only were there no complaints about cleanliness; there were no complaints about catering or patient care. That hospital is now threatened with closure, through no fault of its own.
	Community hospitals play an important role, as has been said, in the local healthcare system, contributing general medical care and rehabilitation after strokes and operations. It is estimated that there are 4,000 GPs working in community hospitals. On average, they are called into their hospital five times a week and carry clinical responsibility for resident patients. Community hospitals almost always stay within the constraints of their budgets set by the PCTs, but the new Department of Health system of payment by results, which pays acute trusts for the work that they do, makes no provision for the in-patient care provided by community hospitals. Acute hospitals have not been willing to share their income with the very hospitals which take their patients for rehabilitation. In the case of elderly patients, that may require an extended period.
	Indeed, community hospitals have also been very helpful to the NHS in taking patients who could not be discharged and who were therefore blocking beds. Bed blocking does three things: it prevents the admission of patients for elective operations; it diverts acute admissions to other hospitals; or it causes excessive delays in accident and emergency departments.
	Despite appeals to the Secretary of State to set a tariff for community hospitals and establish a fairer financial system between acute hospital trusts and community hospitals, the Secretary of State has stated to my friend in another place, Sir John Stanley, that community health services are outside the scope of payment by results and that funding must be negotiated locally. This proves very difficult when many acute hospital trusts and PCTs are already overspending their budgets.
	In the light of the Government's clear wish that community hospitals are not closed for short-term budgetary pressures and their wish to see community services take on more work, why can the Government not ensure that the PCTs are given the financial support to keep open the very community hospitals which fulfil their criteria? We must not let the present crisis of funding in the NHS sweep away an extremely valuable and treasured resource which will be irreplaceable.
	Many community hospitals were created by voluntary contributions and efforts and continue to be supported by their local communities. Their demise would mean this support would be lost. They have very strong and loyal support from the communities they serve and this support has been earned by many years of dedicated service. The public's strong support is quite easy to understand. The opportunity for continuity of care from the patient's own GP team, the friendlier surrounding and the proximity to the patient's home and family make them an excellent environment for recovery and rehabilitation.
	With these convincing arguments, acknowledged by the Government's 2005 election manifesto and again by their White Paper in January, can the Minister explain to the House why community hospitals are still closing and why many more still remain under threat of closure, especially considering the Government's wish to provide more healthcare closer to people's homes?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for the opportunity to have this debate this evening on this important topic. I am extremely flattered by the power that she and a number of other noble Lords have invested in me. I have to disappoint her a little by saying that I am going to resist this overwhelming power that the Health Service Journal seems to have invested in me by not succumbing to telling large parts of the NHS how to plan their local services in great detail.
	I have to say that I was mildly surprised by one or two of the speeches from the Benches opposite. I know it is a long time since they have been in government, but they were in government from time to time, and I thought they were now also in favour of giving a fair amount of independence to people locally. That is the principle on which I am operating.
	This Government are committed to transforming the NHS. Questions have been asked this evening about where we spent the money. One of the things we have done is invest over £1 billion in new and refurbished GP surgeries and we have opened over42 LIFT projects with another seven in procurement. These do enable local parts of the NHS to provide a wider range of services in community settings. We have had to spend a lot of this money to improve the pay and the numbers of NHS staff, to deal with the appalling fabric in parts of the hospital service that we inherited, and to tackle the extremely long waiting times that we inherited, which in some cases led to unnecessary deaths.
	So we have put a lot of money in and my understanding of many of the patient surveys, including those from the Independent Healthcare Commission, is that people who actually experience the NHS recognise the improvements made, as distinct from those who may be excited by misleading reports in the media. Patients have told us that they want more care closer to home and many professionals support this. We are committed to providing more community services in a range of settings as part of this programme.
	I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that I do not resile in any way from the flexible definition of community hospitals that we have used. I do not think we want to go in for the kind of rigid definition that she seemed to be suggesting. That will only fetter the ability of local communities to design services which meet their local needs in a way which is suitable for today's and tomorrow's society.
	We also have a bold vision of radically improved maternity services, which I will say more about later. By 2009, all women will have a range of choices of where and how they have their baby and what pain relief they use. Every woman will have continuity of care before and after birth, provided by a midwife she knows.
	There is a clear synergy between our vision for community services and our vision for maternity services. We expect local commissioners to ensure that the new generation of community hospitals and services include in many cases good-quality maternity services. Nothing that we have said would prevent that.
	In January we published a White Paper, Our health, our care, our say, which reiterated our manifesto commitment to develop a new generation of modern community hospitals over the next five years. Listening to some speeches, one could start to assume that all community hospitals as they are today would be fit for purpose for the years to come. Some of them may be so but many need to change. I was much heartened by the fine speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who drew attention to the fact that sometimes facilities outlive their usefulness and have to be replaced. That is part of having a mature debate about the NHS, instead of ossifying hospital services in a form which no longer meets local needs.
	In July we published Our health, our care, our community: investing in the future of community hospitals and services. I am pleased to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, actually read our press notice, although I am sorry that he did not like it more. The document sets out in detail how we plan to develop new community hospitals. It announced the investment of £750 million capital funding over the next five years and gave detailed guidance to primary care trusts that wish to bid for some of that capital.
	The publication told PCTs that we want new community hospitals to be safe, effective and affordable. We want them to span primary and secondary care, a boundary that is sometimes artificial in today's age. Wherever possible, we want to see social care and other public services brought into some of these new developments. We want them to use innovative funding models and to be designed in consultation with local residents. We want to see the third sector and the independent sector play a role in the development of these new services so that they are fit for purpose in local communities.
	The department has received the first round of bids. Eleven proposals have been submitted from eight of the 10 SHAs. Officials are reviewing the submissions and collecting more information. I hope to be able to advise successful bidders and make an announcement well before the end of this year. We will move speedily to approve the bids and get things moving on the applications.
	I make no apologies for standing by the definition I gave of a community hospital.
	Some noble Lords chastised us slightly because this is a capital project not a revenue one. But the Treasury has defined capital spending, as did a number of distinguished ex-health Ministers on the Benches opposite. You cannot substitute capital for revenue in such a way. This has always been a capital scheme.
	I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the scope of the new community facilities that we hope to see developed provides opportunities for better support for carers. They can provide opportunities to produce more help with palliative care and to support hospices. It is down to local people to decide what is fit for purpose in their community hospitals. We do not want to fetter them in taking forward those ideas.
	In September 2004, we published the maternity standard in the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services. It requires that women can choose from a range of ante-natal, birth and post-birth care services in their local area. We followed this with our manifesto commitment that by 2009 all women will have choice in this particular area. This brought forward the timescale for the implementation of key elements of the maternity standard from 10 to five years. We have outlined a lot of detail since then.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, raised the request of my former colleague, Stephen Ladyman, for an economic appraisal in developing quality standards in birth centres. In July the department commissioned the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit to conduct a three-year study into the effectiveness, acceptability and efficiency of maternity units. The study will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of midwife-led units and consultant-led units. This part of the study will start next year and will be completed in spring 2008. The department has also agreed to write to the Healthcare Commission, suggesting that once the conclusions in the study have been published, it should work with the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Birth Centre Network to develop operating standards for stand-alone midwife-led maternity units. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that the safety of mothers and babies has to be paramount.
	It is sometimes worth concentrating on a particular area that shows what can be done. In some places the kind of service we want to see is already happening. The Crowborough Birthing Centre is a small unit adjacent to Crowborough War Memorial Hospital, a community hospital. The birthing centre has six beds, is open 24 hours a day and is run by a dedicated team of experienced midwives. It offers just the high quality of care we would all like to see.
	David Nicholson was somewhat misquoted: he is not setting out to close maternity services. He was getting the NHS and others to address the fact that sometimes we need to look at the way particular services are provided in some parts of the country and whether we need to reshape those services. Whether we use "reconfiguration" or some other term, it means that we must make them safe and fit for purpose.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I was hoping—I am still hoping—that he would find time to deal with the point made about the wholly improper meeting referred to by my noble friend Lord Fowler. I hope the Minister will leave time for that. Will he?

Lord Warner: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord was a little more patient and did not interrupt, we would be able to get to that, but he has now taken a little more time away from the time I have to deal with the remarks of a number of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was not the only person to raise questions and issues. I was trying to address those as a courtesy to the whole House.
	We have talked a lot about service reconfigurations. This is, of course, one of the issues the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has a deep interest in, with regard to this meeting, which he is so concerned about. The point to bear in mind is that we expect people to review their services and make sure that they are fit for purpose. This is something that PCTs and strategic health authorities must, under statute, do in consultation with their local population. Local people have the power to appeal decisions through the overview and scrutiny committees, which can, if necessary, refer decisions to the Secretary of State and the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. That is a well established procedure, but it does not mean that we can never have any public debate about making sure our services are fit for purpose.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, raised the issue of unbundling the tariff.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered the point I made about the directly party political meeting, in which he was involved, and which could have a profound impact upon community hospitals. Is that not a disgraceful omission on his part?

Lord Warner: My Lords, one minute has been taken out of my time by the interventions of the excitable noble Lord and his colleague. I hope to be allowed to address the concerns raised by all noble Lords in this debate. I was going to get round to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and I have another minute in which to speak. Let us stay calm and he will have an answer, but first I want to address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, about unbundling the tariff. Tomorrow there will be guidance on this posted on the Department of Health website.
	I was rather looking forward to dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. Let me reassure him that I was at the meeting. As a Minister of State I do not have any special advisers, nor does my good friend the honourable Mr Andy Burnham. The Secretary of State has special advisers in the same way that other Cabinet Ministers have done under successive Governments. What I would say to the noble Lord—and I was a civil servant when he was the Secretary of State—is that I respect the fact that when he was in that position, he and his colleagues would, quite rightly, discuss areas where there might be public anxieties about changes of policy. I was in attendance on some of those occasions and I am going to respect the confidentiality of the discussions, just as I am going to respect the confidentiality of the discussions I had on the occasion he mentioned with my political colleagues. That is a perfectly sensible way for any Government to conduct themselves.
	In conclusion, over the next few years the NHS will be transformed by the extra money we have put in and we will provide vastly improved maternity services in conjunction with a new generation of community hospitals. We have had an interesting debate and I am sorry it has not satisfied all noble Lords in terms of its outcome.

Education and Inspections Bill

Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
	Clause 41 [Role of admission forums]:
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Lord Baker of Dorking: moved Amendment No. 12:
	After Clause 45, insert the following new clause-
	"ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS WITH RELIGIOUS CHARACTER
	After section 90 of SSFA 1998 insert-
	"90A ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS WITH RELIGIOUS CHARACTER
	(1) This section applies where an additional foundation or voluntary school with a religious character is to be established.
	(2) The local education authority for the area in which the school is to be established may, if they so desire, specify that up to 25 per cent of places at the school shall be allocated to pupils who do not follow the religion or religious denomination of the school.
	(3) Where the local education authority specify a number of places under subsection (2), the admission authority for the school must make admission arrangements accordingly.
	(4) Where the local education authority decide not to specify a number of places under subsection (2), the consent of the Secretary of State for that decision is required if subsection (5) applies.
	(5) This subsection applies if it appears to the Secretary of State that there would be significant opposition from residents of the area of the local education authority to the additional school only admitting pupils who follow the religion or religious denomination of the school.
	(6) For the purposes of this section, a school is "additional" if it does not replace a school which has been or is to be discontinued.
	(7) References in this section to a school with a religious character shall be construed in accordance with section 69(3).""

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12—at last. For those of us interested in education it has been a long day's journey into night. This amendment differs from the amendment tabled last week by myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Taverne, which your Lordships will recall was much more prescriptive. It gave the Secretary of State the power to insist on a25 per cent quota. This amendment does not do that.
	Perhaps I may draw the House's attention particularly to subsection (2), which states that, when a new school is set up,
	"The local education authority for the area in which the school is to be established may, if they so desire, specify that up to"—
	not necessarily the full amount—
	"25 per cent of places at the school shall be allocated to pupils who do not follow the religion or religious denomination of the school".
	That is the nub of the amendment. It goes on to state that, where the local authority does not specify a certain percentage because it is prepared to grant a totally exclusive faith school, the Secretary of State can call that in if there is significant opposition from residents. That is the amendment we are about to discuss.
	I had better turn off my mobile phone—though you never know, it may be God. I apologise to noble Lords for that little intermission.
	The point I want to make is that the amendment we have tabled today was the Government's policy just a week ago. It was the policy enunciated at the Dispatch Box by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on17 October when he said that, on the undertaking that I withdraw my amendment, the Government intended to,
	"bring forward an amendment on Third Reading along the following lines. We do not believe it right for there to be a mandatory national 25 per cent requirement...However, we wish to give local authorities, in their role as guardians of community cohesion"—
	that is where the term came from in these debates, and it is absolutely right—
	"a power to require that new faith schools have admissions policies which include the offer of at least 25 per cent of places on the basis of local preference, not faith preference alone".
	That was the policy that the Government intended to follow. The Minister also said:
	"We also wish to confer a reserve power on the Secretary of State—a power, not a duty—to act in this matter where a local authority's decisions give rise to a sufficient body of local objections".—[Official Report, 17/10/06; col. 738.]
	The Minister has already said in reply to an earlier amendment that that was conditional upon his securing a degree of consensus. He said that he was very sorry but that he could not secure a degree of consensus. I will come back to that later, if I may.
	So, what I have tabled is in effect what the Government's policy was seven days ago. Indeed, so enthusiastic was the Secretary of State for this policy that he actually leaked no less than a Cabinet document to the Sunday Times of the day before last Monday revealing that this was the Government's policy. He made a speech on that Monday saying that faith schools must cross ethnic and faith barriers. As late as Wednesday of last week, one of my friends went to see him and he confirmed that on the following day the Government would table those two amendments. However, on Thursday night everything changed. Unfortunately, I was on the way to Oxford in a coach and it was very difficult to find out what was happening. But the Government completely changed tack. They abandoned their principle and their policy. One might ask why there was such a huge U-turn, because it was certainly the fastest U-turn in political history. I think Churchill said that the best diet in the world is your own words, but when Churchill said that, he thought that there would be a decent interval between the utterance and digestion. In this case there was not; it was a mere matter of seven days.
	The reason why the policy was withdrawn is very clear. There was a very effective Catholic campaign—brilliantly effective—headed by the Archbishop of Birmingham, who wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph saying that this was the thin end of the wedge—those were his very words. Of course, it was not the thin end of the wedge, because the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who is gifted in these matters, said very clearly that,
	"there is no question of requiring this admission arrangement in respect of existing faith schools where it does not already apply".—[Official Report, 17/10/06; col. 739.]
	The Government made very clear when they said they were going to table these amendments that in no way were they to apply to existing faith schools, but the view of the Catholic Church, led by the Archbishop of Birmingham—of whom I am an admirer, because he has managed to secure a complete surrender by the Government without conceding an inch—is exactly the same as it was seven days ago. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is nodding. I hope that the Minister has noted that the noble Lord nodded when I said that. He is the closest that we get in this House to a Catholic authority.
	The Archbishop of Birmingham, in an interview last Friday, said, "If we are going to have any new Catholic schools—though we have no such proposals because we cannot afford any new schools at the moment—but if we have any new Catholic schools, we will determine what the demand is locally for such schools". If they decide that there are 200 pupils in Bury St Edmunds who want to have Catholic schools, they will then put forward a proposal for a Catholic school for 200 pupils in Bury St Edmunds. Then he said, "When we fill that lot, if there is any spare, we will add a few more"—that is their present policy. So I think that the Archbishop of Birmingham—and I hope that the noble Lord will take this back to him—is a brilliant negotiator. He has got the Government to surrender without yielding an inch. I think that the Government ought to use him in Iraq. I think that he would do a marvellous job there. Congratulations to him.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I would just like to say to him that although I too am a great admirer of the Archbishop of Birmingham and have known him for probably30 years, I have not actually spoken to him once about this Bill during its proceedings. He is more than capable of reading Hansard and seeing what the noble Lord has said.
	What I was agreeing with the noble Lord about is that the position has not changed since last week as far as the opposition of most Catholics is concerned. I do not speak for the Catholic Church—I speak for myself, like the noble Lord speaks for himself. Most Catholics in this country feel very strongly about their schools and would resist any attempt to change the 1944 Education Act, whether it is by central control, in the way that the noble Lord proposed seven days ago, or now, in his change of heart seven days later, by making it a local imposition.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, with great respect, my amendment seven days ago applied only to new faith schools and not existing faith schools. In the past 10 years the Catholic Church has opened only two new faith schools—two primary schools, one in Plymouth and one in Milton Keynes—and it has no proposals to start any more Catholic schools. The amendment affected only new faith schools, not existing schools. It would not have affected existing schools.
	I think the Catholic Church should be congratulated because it adopted the technique of LBJ—Lyndon Baines Johnson. He had a wonderful technique. He said that in any dispute you must put your opponent at a disadvantage immediately. The way you do that is you must get him to deny that he has had carnal knowledge of a pig. Because as soon as he has to deny that, everyone begins to believe, "Well, could he have had carnal knowledge of a pig? My God!". So the immediate reaction would be, "Could it be extended to all faith schools?", and LBJ would be quite proud of the Archbishop of Birmingham.
	It is rather ironic that the main beneficiaries of the Catholic Church's victory are not the Catholic schools but the Muslim schools, which have rather sensibly remained very quiet and let the Catholics fight their cause. I do not think that that is quite what the Pope had in mind.
	I also had to debate with the Catholics when I was Secretary of State. I did not deal just with an archbishop—I was summoned to see Cardinal Hume on my proposals to establish grant-maintained schools. When I met him in his palace, he had on his great red robe and had several nuns around him. He was very impressive indeed and rather saintly. It is very difficult to debate with a saint. He said, "I have a letter from the Pope which opposes grant-maintained schools". I said, "Really? Why does the Pope oppose grant-maintained schools?". He said, "It is an absolute principle of the Catholic Church that nothing should come between the bishop and his flock, particularly an electoral process. So I would ask you, please, to withdraw Catholic schools from the grant-maintained provisions of the Bill".
	As I said, it was very difficult to argue with this saintly man, but I said, "I am very sorry, but this goes back to the Reformation. This is your region and my region. If we are going to have national legislation on grant-maintained schools I cannot possibly exempt the Catholic Church". I was able to resist the Catholic Church on that occasion and I think that the Government could have done so on this occasion, because they made it quite clear that their proposals would not damage existing Catholic schools. But they decided not to do so.
	What is the central issue behind my amendment? It is not freedom of worship—that is accepted in our country. It is not respect for the faith—all faiths are respected in our country. It is not about what is taught by each religion in the schools—that is a matter for each religion to decide itself. What is at stake is the shape of our society in the next 10 or 20 years.
	Interestingly, the debates we have had previously and today are the first serious debates in which we as legislators have been able to debate the Butler Act since 1944. There has been no serious debate on the Butler Act. To some, the Butler Act was a religious settlement in which substantial money was provided to the Catholic and the Protestant denominations in order to maintain their schools. However, it had not envisaged at all the situation which now exists in our country—the multi-faith society into which we have grown and the nature of those faiths which have now emerged in our society. As a result of that Act, and of the debates that we have had, everyone believes that there should be integration in our society. That is what everyone agrees and it is what report after report has said.
	The Cantle report on the race riots in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford in 2001 is the critical report, and it was absolutely clear in what it said. Its first recommendation was that schools in the future should have 25 per cent from other races and other religions. It is still the most important report on this issue, reporting as it does upon ethnic, racial and religious strife in our cities just four years ago. Quite apart from that, all opinion polls show that parents would like, on the whole, to have integrated schools.
	When the Government give academies money and support academies, they insist upon integration. They are about to finance an academy in Oldham itself. It will be an integrated academy with children from all faiths attending. The rabbis, priests and imams and other people come in after hours to talk to the schools. So when the Government are in the driving seat and provide the money directly, they are totally committed to integration. I believe that the Minister personally is committed to integration though I know he will have to speak to another brief tonight. We will probably not know his real feelings until his memoirs are published. I hope that I live long enough to read them. The Government are committed to integration but they run away from the pressure of the Catholic Church. That is what has happened.
	I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock,—who is not in his place tonight—was the shadow Education Secretary way back in 1980-81. I remember him going to the Muslim communities and saying, "Don't ask for separate Muslim schools; it will not do you any good. Go to ordinary schools". The whole lesson of immigrant communities in our country is that they prosper when they mix and merge and mingle. The Jewish community shows that time and time again. That was the strong message put out by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, and it was in fact the policy until 1997 when the Government agreed to restart faith schools. The consequences of that were not appreciated at the time.
	People ask whether my proposal is practical. I have had to answer on television and radio a lot of questions such as whether I would send one of my children—I am a bit past that now—or anyone in my family to a Muslim school to form part of the 25 per cent. And this is principally about Muslim schools, because there are 120 such schools waiting in the wings, with probably 50 or 60 of them ready for it. I am not against that. Money to Muslim schools must be a good thing because the standard of education will be improved. But if you take the Queen's shilling, it is entirely appropriate for the Queen to determine the conditions on which that shilling is taken. We can say to the Muslim schools that their admissions criteria should be closer to the admissions criteria of the Church of England, but the Church of England has rightly and with great boldness said that it will give priority to non-Anglicans in 25 per cent of places in new Anglican schools. That was a bold and correct measure and reflects very much the practice of what happens in Anglican schools. That is the policy. I myself went to an Anglican primary school which was totally mixed and where my closest friend was a Jewish boy. If the Muslim schools adopt something as relaxed as that as an admissions criterion then other people will come to them.
	Secondly, in answer to the question of whether anyone else will go to those schools, Bradford council has decided that no school should be dominated by a particular ethnic race. It has moved the catchment areas around so that they are composed of mixed-communities. That can be done, and is being done in Oldham at the moment. There can be mixed community schools.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, is not in the House tonight but I am sure that he must have read my speech. I do not believe that it is in the interest of the Muslim communities themselves to rush into establishing a great number of Muslim schools. If a large number of single-faith schools emerge in an area, say four primaries and three secondaries—there are 100 Muslim schools waiting, but there are also 100 evangelical Christian schools which in many respects are just as difficult—then the community will be closed. You will have a community that is closed upon itself. What will happen in that area? They will first ask for a separate inspection—and that has already been asked for. Secondly, they will ask for modifications to the curriculum. The most beguiling request of all is, "Can't we have world history rather than British history?". Then, they will also ask in the Muslim schools for an observance of family Sharia law.
	These communities tend to have two characteristics—they are disadvantaged and poor. What we are really talking about is what is going to be the shape of our society in our towns and cities in the next 20 or 30 years. If the purpose is to create a total Muslim or Christian personality, then you will have isolated communities. The report into Oldham observed parallel and separate development. That is why this debate is important. I know that it is late at night and a difficult time to take decisions, but this is the first time that either House has had to discuss this matter and what will happen.
	If the Government win tonight—which I suppose is quite likely—and open the door to more faith schools, the people who start those schools will have to exercise considerable leadership to ensure that they do not create closed communities. We talked of the inspectorate under an earlier amendment, which I do not think is a substitute for this one—it cannot bear the weight it wants to carry. One of the things the inspectorate will have to do is find and draw the fine line between religious teaching and indoctrination, which is very difficult.
	Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute of the Study of Islam and Christianity, is not in favour of exclusive Muslim schools. He said of the Muslim faith:
	"It is the only one which teaches its followers to gain political power and then impose a law which governs every aspect of life, discriminating against women and non-believers alike. And this is ultimately why naïve multiculturalism leads not to a mosaic of cultures living in harmony, but one threatened by Islamic extremism".
	The overwhelming feeling of people in this House, whether they support me tonight or not, is to have some form of integrated education in our country. I would like to see children of different faiths playing together in the playground, sitting beside one another in maths and physics lessons, meeting over lunch, walking down the corridor together, taking the same bus home and then visiting each other's family. That is what I did—I visited a Jewish family back in Southport during the war. I would never have known what Judaism was about if I had not done that. If you have separate faith schools, and more separate faith schools, you will not have that. The House has to decide whether we want to inflict parallel and separate developments upon our inner cities or whether we want proper integration. The only way to have proper integration is to adopt these voluntary proposals. I beg to move.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I support the amendment, to which I have put my name. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, and I have come to this from different standpoints. The noble Lord is an Anglican; I am a committed humanist, so there is no chance that God will phone me on my mobile phone.
	The amendment may not be the perfect solution, but it would help integration and send a strong signal to schools. I am also disappointed and frustrated at the Government's failure to bring back a similar amendment as originally proposed, except it has meant that we have had a good debate.
	Recent surveys have shown that 64 per cent of the public oppose government funding for faith schools, fearing their impact on social cohesion—an expression heard many times tonight. I would prefer to have no expansion of faith schools, but the amendment tries to balance any expansion with the imperative to counteract the exclusivity and foster integration between faiths.
	It is understandable that, with faith schools already funded through the public purse, others will want public money for their schools. But faith should surely not be allowed to override the needs of children for an education which opens windows to a wider world. Culture and beliefs should, in my view, be transmitted mainly at home, in the church, mosque or temple. The report on Bradford carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, pointed out that young people realise that being taught in what he called religious ghettos is not a good preparation for life in a multicultural society.
	One Muslim school in north-west London states that the aim of the school is,
	"to produce total Muslim personalities through the training of children's spirits, intellect, feelings and bodily senses".
	We know where such exclusivity leads. We know what happened in Northern Ireland, as pointed out so powerfully on Report by my noble friend Lady Blood.
	I have been and am committed to sound, integrated education as a teacher, parent and school governor. My own children all went to local schools where they made friends across the religious and racial spectrum. I have also been privileged, through schools, to meet parents and teachers across the religious spectrum. The school where I am governor celebrates a multi-faith ethos most successfully. If a school has mixed faiths, then parents will be of mixed faiths and will create communities of mixed faiths. Separation will not do this, nor I fear in some cases will there be adequate emphasis on scientific fact or personal, social and health education. How will the inspectorate for separate faith schools operate alongside Ofsted?
	I remember teaching personal, social and health education in a secondary school where a father prevented his daughter from attending the lessons on religious grounds, in case sex was mentioned. This girl was later found to be peddling overt pornographic material in the playground. At least the school could deal with this as it had a policy and a programme, and I am glad to say that the father became convinced that not discussing things was harmful. How many more children might be damaged by schools not dealing adequately with their broad educational needs?
	I do not believe that faith schools will necessarily and voluntarily admit a percentage of children of other faiths or of no faith, though I know that some do. I had a graphic experience of this over the Recess. A Muslim boy I know wanted to apply to a well known Roman Catholic school in London. He lived nearer to the school than many who attend it. The case was a needy one, which I thought might attract some sympathy from the school. I was told that it only admitted children from Roman Catholic families and that the waiting list was also open only to Roman Catholic families. Some will say that that is fair enough, but I resent having to pay taxes to fund segregation, which is essentially what this is.
	The Secretary of State for Education affirmed, as did my noble friend earlier, that consultation on this issue with various faiths has taken place. Were all beliefs consulted—such as humanists and secularists? Were teacher organisations, governors and parents consulted? The Secretary of State says we should we seek voluntary agreements rather than use a "blunt instrument"—his words—to achieve the aims of integration. Yet Governments have used many a blunt instrument to change laws on matters of principle and practice. It seems that here, expediency is being peddled as sound educational philosophy.
	There is some value in other amendments before us today about inspections and reviews. I have great sympathy with them, but I want to see more rigour attached to ensuring that schools represent a wide spectrum of belief and understandings now. As I said earlier, a strong signal is needed. The letter to noble Lords from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, myself, and the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Taverne, says:
	"We do not want to see our society separated, divided, jealous and envious. We want a society that is cohesive, harmonious, generous and tolerant.".
	I fear that unless we are firm about our good intentions, we will see society splinter even further and deny children the opportunity to enjoy all that living in multi-racial Britain offers.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I have also put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. I wish to express my dismay at the Government's surrender to the Catholic lobbies. I am a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and never more so than during the discussion on a previous amendment when he showed enormous chutzpah. There he was, sounding the bugles of advance to cover his retreat.
	It strikes me how much this place, the House of Lords, is out of touch with what the people as a whole think. Those who support faith schools are undoubtedly over-represented in this House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has said, something like two-thirds of the population do not want government money spent on faith schools. I feel rather uncomfortable in finding myself, for once, in tune with the majority.
	I suspect the reason that many people do not want this is because they do not like the idea that children should be treated as Muslim, Jewish, Protestant and Catholic children. If you think about it, it is as wrong as if you treat them as Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour children. Most people do not want that because they feel they want children, as they become more mature, to decide for themselves what and what not to believe in.
	It is perfectly true that religion is overwhelmingly determined by an accident of birth: who your parents are and where you are born. That is not true of all—there are converts—but of most. I suspect that even as reasonable a group as the Bishops in this House, if they had been born in a Muslim country, would now be imams rather than bishops. As children learn to think critically and become more mature, they often abandon the religion of their parents. That is one of the reasons why there is a decline in church attendances—not in the case of the Muslim community, but then if one turns out to be a Muslim apostate there are certain rather severe penalties.
	The fact is that faith schools seek to ensure that the children they teach stay within the fold. I agree with the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in the last debate on this subject. I support this amendment because it seems to be the only way to limit the role of indoctrination and to leave children as free as possible to make their own decisions about what to believe.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am also a signatory to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. I am always amazed how much theological energy there is still left, especially when we debate education. I wonder whether the Minister may sometimes feel he is back in the age of Gladstone, about whom he knows a great deal. All the issues we are discussing today would have been completely familiar to the Grand Old Man, and he would have attempted to discourse on them at immense length, though much more eruditely than any of us can probably manage—except perhaps the Bishops' Bench.
	The basic historical situation is perfectly clear. The Roman Catholics, having been driven into a defensive posture by non-conformist attack, have long since joined forces with the Church of England in dogmatic defence of the 1902 Education Act, as amended in 1944, which, in Lloyd George's words, "put Rome on the rates". This is exactly the same debate as we were having in 1902, only now it is not Rome but Mecca.
	I dare say that the best solution would have been that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that most rational of men: that all state education, new and old, should be severely secular, with religious education left to churches, Sunday schools, mosques and other private foundations. That was essentially the solution of the Church/state conflict in France, but they were too logical for us. That is not the position we are faced with here; we have run a dual system in which church and voluntary schools have received state money, have been supported by the taxpayer and have had to give very little in return over the 100 years or more that the system has existed. I know that they want to continue that, as they had a good deal from the state.
	The 1944 Act established the principle, of which we should be aware in considering the amendment, that voluntary schools were supposed to give something in return for state support. They could opt to be controlled and obtain 100 per cent grant, or aided and get 50 per cent grant, or have special agreements and a 75 per cent grant. Each had a graduated obligation attached to it—the grant was in inverse ratio to the freedom to provide denominational instruction. In other words, the less they got, the freer they were to be religious missionaries. The principle is clear; if the state gives money to schools, it has a right to a say in school policy and aims.
	What aims of educational policy do the Government want to see served by allowing new schools to be set up? That goes back to a debate that we have been having for the past 10 to 15 years, the main point of which is that such schools are part of the Government's choice agenda. Some of us have urged for a long time the idea that parents should be given a wider choice than they now have regarding to which schools they send their children.
	The Government could have pursued that by allowing only secular promoters to set up state schools. In fact, as I understood it, the main clamour for new state-supported schools came from Muslim communities. So the Government decided, as part of their choice agenda, to put Mecca on the rates, just as Rome was put on the rates in 1902.
	The Church of England and Roman Catholics do not want to disturb the existing concordat. They are relaxed that Muslim schools can be fitted into it without any major change. But we need something more robust, as I suggested in my previous intervention. First, we are dealing with large, newly arrived communities, not old, established ones. That presents us with problems of a completely different order from those that gave rise to the church/state debates of the previous century. Nebulous words, or even instructions, such as "promoting social cohesion" are inadequate to that situation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, pointed out.
	Secondly, the position is more complicated because Islam has more implications for the curriculum than Christian denominations. The problem is the requirement stated in a standard text that Islamic education should in all respects conform to Koranic guidance. That is particularly relevant to such areas of the curriculum as physical education, swimming, art, music, dance and sex education. Do we want government money to be invested in such deeply separated curricula? We should not want that and we should impose some requirement. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is one way of ensuring that Mecca will not be put on the rates without substantial modifications.
	Requiring Muslim schools to take 25 per cent non-Muslim pupils will be a continuous check on any tendency to extreme separation, which would otherwise become unchecked. There are other ways of achieving greater integration of educational practices, but until the Government come up with something more robust, I urge the House to support the amendment.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I oppose the amendment. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that I put to your Lordships on Report—I know that we all want to make progress.
	I enjoyed the knock-about to which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, treated us earlier, but I think that he sometimes underestimates the passion that ordinary Catholics feel about this issue. I do not refer to the Catholic Church but to people who attend Catholic churches, who have been to Catholic schools and whose children attend Catholic schools.
	The noble Lord—perhaps inadvertently, because he said where his real target was—has inflamed the passions of people in nearly 2,000 Catholic schools all over the country because his amendment has been interpreted by some as the beginning of the end of their control over their admissions policies. Many noble Lords and Members of another place have also received letters from those people. The position was exacerbated—a point that he did not touch on—when the Secretary of State said that this measure could be applied later to all church schools. That obviously fills people with a deep sense of misgiving and places at risk the gains that many people have made.
	Lessons can be learnt from the experience of immigrant families who came to this country and integrated and married in the way that I described on Report. My mother was from the west of Ireland and came to the East End, where she married my father at the end of the war. He was a Desert Rat and, when he was demobbed, they married. In common with many people, I was brought up in the East End in a Catholic/Jewish neighbourhood and had the same kind of friendships as the noble Lord, despite the fact that I went to Catholic schools. I was privileged to go on to the Jesuit grammar school, having passed the scholarship at the age of 11. That represented yet more social division, as the noble Lord might see it, but, in fact, it provided me with an opportunity, and I am grateful to those who gave me those chances at that time. I am also very conscious of the way in which money had to be raised, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood and parish by parish, to pay for the construction of those schools.
	My noble friend Lord Skidelsky knows better than I do that the debate did not begin at the start of the 20th century. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is a great admirer of GK Chesterton and is familiar with the rallies that he and Hilaire Belloc led in 1906 to fight for Catholic education in this country. They came to the issue having been informed by what had happened in the 19th century. After all, it was only in 1829 that Jews and Catholics were emancipated and the iniquitous Test Acts were removed. During the 19th century, universities—Oxbridge, for example—denied places to Catholics merely because they were Catholics. Therefore, significant gains have been made.
	If we want to integrate the Muslim community in this country, it will not happen by imposing 25 per cent quotas. Does anyone believe that, in the present climate, people will be queuing up to send their children to Muslim schools to take up that 25 per cent of places? It would be unrealistic to believe that. We will see change through patience and generosity and by working with the Muslim community in this country. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, talk this evening about the responsibility that Muslims feel they have to work towards social inclusion, social responsibility and social cohesion. I am sure that that represents the best way forward.
	It has been suggested in this debate and previously that somehow the church schools are not inclusive. However, the fact is that about 16 per cent of our population who qualify as ethnic minorities are in state schools. In Catholic schools, that figure is 18 per cent. Thirty per cent of pupils in Catholic schools are not Catholic. It is not as a result of legislation that those schools have come to admit people who are not Catholic; they have done so voluntarily.
	I was struck by a letter that many of your Lordships will have received today from Henry Grunwald QC, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. He said:
	"You will understand, therefore, why our community is particularly shocked at the suggestion that the current model of Jewish faith schools would no longer have an assured future. You will also understand the concern that a discretion devolved to local authorities provides very little comfort, when there can be no certainty as to how that discretion would be exercised, either now or in the future. Finally, you should be aware of the fear, notwithstanding any current assurances, that these provisions might eventually extend to existing faith schools".
	That is certainly the view of many Catholics as well as Jews, and we should take such fears into account as we consider these questions.
	I think back to my own experience as a constituency Member of Parliament in Liverpool. It was suggested earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that Jewish schools are in some way non-inclusive. The fact is that, because there was a surfeit of places in the local Jewish school that served my own constituency—the King David High School—it had more non-Jewish than Jewish children. This matter is not as straightforward as noble Lords would have us believe.
	I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said on Report. She said:
	"I am afraid I do not believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, would achieve very much ... I do not think that the noble Lord's amendment is practicable and workable".—[Official Report, 17/10/06; col. 729.]
	I agree with that assessment. Perhaps it is also the reason why the Opposition Front Bench, the Government and noble Lords from many parts of your Lordships' House have come to the same conclusion. It is also notable that opposition to the introduction of quotas has united the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The political reality is that if this amendment were passed this evening, it would undoubtedly be resisted in another place.
	Last week, when asked whether he supported this amendment, David Cameron categorically said that he opposed the quotas proposed in the noble Lord's amendment because it smacked of social engineering. He said that he had initially been attracted to the localist approach canvassed by the Secretary of State, until he had heard Mr Johnson suggest that the principle could in future be applied to all church schools. Mr Cameron concluded that the best and most effective way forward was to impose a duty to work for social cohesion, which your Lordships debated and approved earlier today.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, where does the amendment mention the imposition of quotas?

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, explained this point and mildly admonished me earlier for raising it. He has admitted that this is not the amendment which he tabled a week ago, which proposed a centrally imposed quota. The amendment now passes that power to local authorities. If the amendment is successful, they will be able to decide whether to impose a quota of up to25 per cent. That is a fair interpretation of the position.

Lord Baker of Dorking: If they wish to.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, what will that lead to? It will lead to debate taking place in every local authority up and down the land. What will that lead to in turn? It will lead to a patchwork quilt. I give noble Lords an example—it is not hypothetical. During the 1980s, many noble Lords will have followed events in Liverpool. If an ideologically motivated city council takes it into its head to oppose all state schools, it would be able, under the amendment which has been crafted this evening, to deny places in faith schools. It would be able to impose a new Test Act. Its local thought police would decide whether someone had faith. I am not exaggerating the situation: that is precisely what would happen. How will they be able to prove it one way or another? If the noble Lord's amendment were to be successful and become law, we could easily find ourselves in a situation where people lied to admissions authorities to get their children into a school. How would we be able to prove that they told the truth? This amendment opens the way to that situation.
	It would achieve one other undesirable thing in the localist setting: if I wanted my children to go to a faith school which took a more benign approach, and could afford to send them there, I would be free to move to a neighbouring authority—in this hypothetical example, to a borough such as Wirral or Sefton. Is that in the interests of social cohesion? Is it in the interests of the disadvantaged? Is it in anybody's interests? I hope that noble Lords will oppose the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord made a great speech in defence of the Roman Catholic position, which I understand very well. Does he consider that the amendment which we agreed earlier will solve the problem as regards Muslim schools?

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a good point. She will know that I believe in integration. I am a patron of the Belfast trust which worked for integrated education in Northern Ireland. I am married to an Anglican, with eight ordained Anglican clergy on my wife's side of the family. I work with Muslims, Jews and many others to bring about some sense of social cohesion in places such as Liverpool. I am very confident that the amendment which we passed earlier without dissent is the way to achieve the objective that she and I want.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment, because what he has done in the past week or two has borne fruit. I hope he will take the view that the amendment which was carried a short time ago is a great achievement and that he should not press the matter further. If he does so, I certainly shall not vote for his amendment. I shall not vote against him, but only for old time's sake and not because I have any sympathy for the amendment.
	I fear he has no answer to the fundamental argument against what he proposes. I am glad that the Government have climbed down from an elevated position that they should never have scaled. If new Catholic schools were required to take a given percentage of children of non-Catholic parents, I cannot believe that harmony would reign where harmony does not prevail now. In many of our inner cities, the problem is not that there are schools where all the children are of one faith, but, a more serious one, that there are schools where nearly all the children are of one race. In some neighbourhoods, schools have become almost entirely occupied by people of one race.
	This amendment would not cure a social ill; it would create a great injustice. If new schools were required to take a given percentage of children of, say, non-Catholic parents, that would create a great feeling of injustice among those Catholic parents whose children were denied places which were given to the children of non-Catholic parents. We all know that much of the anxiety in the House tonight is centred on the future of Muslim schools and what that will do for our society. I can see the argument for a complete end to state funding of new faith schools, but I can see no argument for the state continuing to fund faith schools and then agonising over how to mitigate the consequences of what it has done. If there is a problem, particularly in relation to Muslim schools, it is being addressed in a somewhat roundabout way.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, I shall endeavour to be brief and I shall certainly not emulate Gladstone. I agree with a number of speakers that we are seeking integration. I am sorry but I do not believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will achieve that and I do not think it is the right way to achieve it. I disagree with the noble Lord in thinking that it will be simple to implement as I think there will be complications in implementing it; and, in the light of the amendment which we have already debated and accepted, I believe that there are other ways of addressing these issues.
	When we last debated this matter, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth was in his place and he is sorry not to be here today. I would like to correct a comment that was made earlier. In his letter to the Secretary of State, the right reverend Prelate said that,
	"all new Church of England schools should have at least 25 per cent of places available to children with no requirement that they be of practising Christian families. The places would not be left empty if they were not filled by such children, so this would technically not be a 'quota' but a 'proportion'".
	The noble Lord, Lord Baker, spoke of a priority, which gave the wrong impression of that statement.
	I do not want to repeat all the comments made from these Benches less than two weeks ago. We have made a statement and I am delighted that the Archbishop of Birmingham has clarified that at least 30 per cent of children in Roman Catholic schools are currently from non-Catholic families. I think that is an advance.
	The noble Lord, Lord Baker, rightly said that this is about the shape of our society. In addition, I believe that the heart of the matter is whether we in this Parliament, those who form public opinion and the people of Britain have enough confidence in our values and way of life, founded as it is on Christian beliefs and values—themselves generous and inclusive—to allow those of different beliefs and ways of life to flourish within our society on their terms.
	I believe that we need to trust the minority faith communities and not impose legal limitations on them before allowing their schools into the maintained system of education. So I believe thatthe amendment could foster a lack of trust, which in the end would be destructive to the very integration we are seeking to achieve. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment. Although I understand the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has proposed it, it will not achieve the objective we seek.

Lord Brennan: My Lords, at Third Reading the House must exercise legislative discipline and I propose to apply it to the amendment. It is fundamentally flawed. The amendment would give local authorities the power to impose quotas and give the Secretary of State the reserve power to ensure that exclusive schools do not come into existence. In neither case is there an appeal. These are strong powers to give to local authorities and to the Secretary of State. Our legislative discipline requires us to consider in what way that power is expressed. What circumstances circumscribe its exercise? I invite your Lordships to note that in subsection (2) the power for local authorities is a power whereby they may, "if they so desire", impose a quota. That is not a clear expression of the extent of irrational exercise of a power. There is no cross-reference anywhere to the circumstances to be taken into account if it is to be exercised. It is doomed to failure. It will never survive a judicial review application. It is that discipline that I am inviting the House to note on this occasion.
	In addition, there are no circumstances to be applied to its exercise. Clause 33(6), as the Minister pointed out, refers to community cohesion, but for foundation schools. Amendment No. 7 refers to governing authorities and Amendment No. 19 to the Ofsted inspectorate. Not in Clause 1, Clause 2 or anywhere else do we find a local authority being required to take into consideration certain circumstances before deciding what it desires. That is unacceptable.
	I was surprised when I read the amendment, and I may prove to be wrong, as may the librarians, but tonight they inquired on my behalf. In 58 years of parliamentary experience, only two Acts and nine sets of regulations have used the phrase, "if they so desire" and then only to give people a choice to make a representation, to participate or not; never to lay the foundation for the exercise of national or local power. If the amendment in this form is the result of inadvertence, so be it. If it is the alternative, so be it. In either event it is simply not acceptable. Would any one of your Lordships accept a power by national or local authorities in any other context simply dictated by the phrase, "if they so desire"? Of course not. The amendment fails, I regret to say, despite the wit and style with which it was introduced, on basic legislative principle. This is not a phrase that accommodates our democratic approach.
	Secondly, if you propose to change decades of educational practice ingrained in our society, you need clarity. Was it not in the United States, on the only occasion that I can think of, with quotas in education during the civil rights era, that the passage of white pupils to black schools and vice versa led to division and outrage—educational and social consequences that no one had ever envisaged? Those who propose a system in which that might be required need to explain to us how it will work and how those problems will be avoided. The amendment does not do that. Neither in its content nor in its intent does it meet the democratic and legislative principles of the House.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I agree with what has just been forensically said by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, about the defects in the amendment, but I should like, if I may, to make a series of different, short points. First, any Jew, like me, from my generation would have a natural aversion to quotas when it comes to access to schools. Those of my generation will remember how most public schools in London, for example, had very small Jewish quotas. The school that I went to, the City of London School, was, when I went there, the only one that had no Jewish quota, so one-third of the school was Jewish. The idea of quotas is something that I think both secular and religious Jews dislike, partly for that reason.
	Secondly, most sensible people would say that having apartheid or religiously segregated schools creates social evils—witness Northern Ireland or, I would say, Birkenhead, Liverpool or Scotland, where there are obvious examples of the social problems that segregated education creates.
	Thirdly, it is important to explain to the House and to the right reverend Prelate that this is not an area where there is not already robust law in place to catch state-maintained schools as public authorities if they discriminate on racial or religious grounds in access to places in those schools.
	I give just two examples. One is the Race Relations Act, which would prevent any school, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise—indeed, even private schools—from practising direct or indirect racial discrimination in access. The more telling example, because it is more pervasive, is the Human Rights Act. I should be interested to know whether the Minister agrees with what I am about to say or can take advice on it.
	The European Convention on Human Rights, in Article 2 of the first protocol, guarantees the right to education. Article 14 of the convention has to be read with it and states that in respect of the enjoymentof the right to education, there must be no discrimination. "No discrimination" will include discrimination on religious grounds.
	I was counsel in a case on behalf of the Government of Mauritius, whose written constitution is modelled on the European Convention on Human Rights, which came before the Privy Council two years ago. An appeal was brought by the Bishop of Port Louis on behalf of the managers of 12 Catholic secondary schools in Mauritius. What had happened in that case is instructive. The Catholic Church in Mauritius maintained a system of private education that was excellent in the secondary area. In order to persuade the churches to bring their schools within the state sector, the Government made a deal whereby the Catholic schools could maintain a 50 per cent quota for Catholics; the other 50 per cent being admitted on merit. So there was a clear 50:50 quota.
	The question that a Hindu father of an 11 year-old girl raised in the case was whether it was unconstitutional discrimination to refuse to admit his daughter in the 50 per cent reserved for Catholics in that area. A strong and unanimous judicial committee with the Privy Council, led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, the senior Law Lord, held that that difference of treatment was discriminatoryunless it could be objectively justified, looking atall the circumstances, including the principle of proportionality.
	In my view, that case, read with the case law on the European Human Rights Convention, shows the following: either of these categories of schools, these additional schools, is wholly funded out of public funds. They are therefore public authorities within the meaning of the Human Rights Act. They therefore have a duty to comply with the convention rights and with the right not to discriminate unfairly and unjustifiably in allocating pupils to those schools. Therefore, whether it be a Muslim school, a Jewish school, a Catholic school, or an Anglican school,any school which discriminates arbitrarily or ina disproportionate way in their admission arrangements will be vulnerable immediately to a direct challenge under Sections 6 and 7 of the Human Rights Act for breaching their obligations under the human rights convention because they are all public authorities.
	This would not apply, of course, to schools that are privately funded, and nor should it. In the private sector, as the case I have just mentioned indicates, different considerations arise. But I just wish the House to understand that we already have a strong and robust Human Rights Act and Race Relations Act which govern in this field, and for that reason, as well as the technical points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I am not in favour of this amendment. I do not like quotas, anyhow, and it is unnecessary. But I do think that those who operate schools of this kind ought to be pretty careful about the way that they make their admission arrangements. I would just add that under the Race Relations Act, local authorities are implicated in some areas, and so is the Secretary of State for Education, if they allow schools to discriminate indirectly or directly on grounds of race.
	There is a lot of law in place. It will trump the legislation that the House is now considering because the Human Rights Act says that all legislation must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the convention rights, and the same applies to administrative discretion. I apologise for talking as the lawyer that I am, but I thought it might be quite useful if I gave the House some free legal advice on this area.

Lord Winston: My Lords, I rise regrettably to oppose the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. I do so remembering that we have at least one thing in common. Although I did not go to his primary school, we both shared a secondary "ancient" education.
	Be that as it may, I feel that what he is recommending is a huge social experiment. It seems to me that before one considered this kind of legislation, one would need to do some very serious social science research to see exactly what the consequences could be. It could well be that rather than causing harmony, disharmony could occur as a result of this, particularly in areas where these schools are oversubscribed. In the current case of some Jewish schools, they are grossly oversubscribed in north-west London. If there were new schools being made, that would be a massive problem for those people.
	We have heard a great deal about the taxpayer paying for a religious education, but often in the schools that I am aware of, the religious education is paid for separately. Certainly in most Jewish schools, it does not come within the state's remit. Religious education is paid for by the parents who raise those funds by alternative methods.
	We have heard other irrelevant arguments. My noble friend Lady Massey talked about the situation in Northern Ireland. That is completely irrelevant. The divisiveness in Northern Ireland has nothing to do primarily with schooling. It comes from a totally different kind of society with the social tensions that has.
	Equally, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that it is ridiculous to take France as an example. Does he seriously consider France to be a more cohesive society as regards religious discipline? On the contrary, there is probably more anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic feeling there than there has been in Britain in recent years. The model in other parts of Europe is no better.
	Rather than taunt my noble friend Lord Adonis for a switch of direction, we should congratulate the Government on their flexibility. It is not just the Catholic community that has made representations to them; the Jewish community is wholeheartedly opposed to this kind of amendment because it fears for the consequences. Much of the Muslim community opposes it. As has been said, we must trust the Muslim community accordingly. The worst thing that could happen if we discontinued such state funding would be to force some religious education into the private sector, where it might not be so well controlled. That would be a grave error. We should contemplate that today before we go through the Lobby, if the noble Lord decides to call a Division.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is self-evident from what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that the Roman Catholic Church is acting in a selective and self-protecting way. It is perfectly understandable. My noble friend Lord Baker and others have created a real danger of Muslim schools undergoing the same ghettoisation—I am not sure whether that is the right word but I am afraid that it is what they want to do. It is not often realised, for instance, that in the Muslim world there is no conception like ours in the Christian world of:
	"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".
	Throughout Muslim history there has been tension with secular government, because in theory the Prophet did not allow it. Everything had to be governed under Sharia or religious law. Christianity, luckily for itself, had the ability to separate the two.
	The Church of England has been fundamental to the development of the ethos of the United Kingdom. As I said to a bishop earlier, I am not even sure that the Church of England always believes in God. He quite charmingly proved my point by saying, "I think we do". The Church of England's very broadminded and, if I may say so, very English approach to religion and society has made its schools particularly good.
	The other Churches felt left out and asked for help to preserve their separate identity. That is why Peel paid for Maynooth Roman Catholic seminary well before 1902 and Lloyd George. It was designed by Pugin and paid for by the English taxpayer. The very real danger that has been shown is that of exclusive schools, and we do not address it at our peril.
	I will vote for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Baker, even though I was deeply influenced by the stunning performance of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and quite understand why he is such a brilliantly paid barrister. I agree with him legislatively, but I feel so strongly about the danger of faith schools at the fringe, beyond the Roman Catholic, Church of England and, probably, Jewish schools, that I must vote for my noble friend Lord Baker. I do not think that we have yet addressed this serious problem as much as we should.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I suspect that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is unworkable, for the reasons given by, among others, the two noble and learned Lords who addressed the House.
	The horse may well have bolted because I am not sure how one could apply the 25 per cent quota to the new independent trust schools, which will be substantially financed by the state. I am not clear about it, but I guess that it would be very difficult to do that, therefore there is always a door open to escape from the requirements that might be laid upon the schools in the maintained and public sectors.
	Having said that, I recognise the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. There are real issues here about how we deal with separate faith schools. I will conclude by saying that I am very sorry that, in this debate, we have not looked at all at the concept of confederation between schools. We cannot, I believe, make the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, work; I would not support it even if I thought that we could. I am troubled that we have had almost no discussion of the extremely helpful and fertile concept of confederation between schools, whereby schools retain their own governing bodies, but share a great many activities, and even some courses and teaching, so that there is a real mixture of cultures and faiths within schools. My noble friend Baroness Sharp, with her usual sagacity, proposed as long ago as the Education Act 2002 that we should look very carefully at the concept of confederation between schools of different faiths and non-faith schools. I am sorry that this much more constructive and, indeed, serious proposal has not been given much time in this House. I hope it will be given time by the Minister sooner or later.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, I have to say that I have found this debate quite distressing. I never thought that I would sit here, in this House, looking at the expansion of faith-based schools. I was part of the Swann committee, which some noble Lords may know about. It looked at the education of children from ethnic minority groups. In our report we took the bold step of saying that it was perhaps time to have no faith-based schools. Now we sit here today, constantly extending faith-based schools. The next lot might be Rastafarian schools. Why should they not have schools? Why should anybody not have schools?
	I was brought up a Hindu. As such, I do not come from a revealed religious base. We are taught to respect everybody's faith, everybody's belief and everybody's way of worshipping God, if they so wish to do. Abrahamic religions do not do that. Muslims say that they are the true faith; Catholics say that they are the true faith; Anglicans say that they are the true faith; and Jews say that they are the true faith. There are so many true faiths. Do they all have their own separate gods? If you believe in God, there can be only one. The more we separate systems of belief, the more divergence we will create in our society. It is logical and obvious that this will happen.
	No matter: we are at this point; we are not starting today. We are debating a particular amendment. Whether it is workable or not, I shall be voting for it, because it at least sets down a marker towards trying to create some kind of commitment to bringing children from other faiths into a school. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has talked about his mother and father. I am very happy that my noble friend Lord Waddington mentioned race, because there is a double whammy here. We have, until now, been dealing mainly with white faith-based schools. This is the first time for us to look at non-white faith-based schools. Please do not let us minimise the impact of that fact. It will not be as easy for a girl educated in a Muslim school to find someone totally different from somewhere else and get married to that person. I do not think that it will be that easy. A young white man recently asked me, "Why are you so fussed about faith-based schools? I come home, I play with my friends and I have friends from all over the place". Will a Muslim child, girl or boy—and first of all, the girls and boys will not mix together; we know that—be in the happy position of meeting friends and going to each other's houses? I know of many Muslim families who will not let their children go to anyone's house if they are not Muslim. All this will exacerbate these divisions.
	Let us hope for the best, but I shall certainly vote for my noble friend Lord Baker's amendment, just to make the point. I think we are at a crucial stage and our young people will live to see the results of all this and will regret it.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, makes an interesting point. If you take the argument to its logical conclusion, it will be the Jedi who want a faith-based school next because I gather that the Jedi was the fourth most popular faith declared in the last census.
	We have again had a long and interesting debate and many important points have been made. I shall be as brief as I can in saying why Members on these Benches will not support the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in the Lobbies tonight. However, I am very attracted to the picture he paints of schools in which children of different faiths and no faith sit next to each other, play and learn together, go home on the bus and visit each others' houses. That is a situation we would like to see. However, we do not like the amendment for three reasons. The first is that we do not like quotas, and the main reason we do not like them is that they persuade some people to pretend to be things that they are not and others to pretend not to be things that they are. That always happens with quotas.
	The second reason is one which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, himself convinced me of; that is, that the amendment will not achieve much because it will apply only to a very few schools. We live in a period of falling rolls and not many schools will be affected by his quotas. The third reason is that we do not think it is workable. In order to investigate whether it would be workable, I looked at evidence from existing faith schools that already open their doors to children of other faiths or none. I discovered that Al Hijrah School, a voluntary-aided Muslim secondary school in Birmingham which already accepts non-Muslim pupils, has said that only one or two inquiries had been received from non-Muslim families since the school became state funded four years ago. Gatton Primary School in Wandsworth, south London, which is another state-funded Muslim school, has had very few applications from non-Muslim children. The Guru Nanak School in Hillingdon, the country's only state-funded Sikh comprehensive, said that it gets about six applications a year from non-Sikhs. Two faith-based primary schools are about to open in Slough, one is Sikh and one Muslim. Both have already decided on their own quotas, one of 20 per cent and the other 25 per cent, of places to be offered to those not of their faith. Both of the head teachers have said that they do not really think they will be able to fill those quotas. If they do not fill them, well, the places cannot be left empty. According to the law, they have to be filled.
	The objective of the noble Lord's amendment, which I applaud, will not be achieved. Members on these Benches are not in the business of putting on to the statute book legislation which is unworkable.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their applause. However, we will not be supporting the amendment.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, are the Jedi a faith? I did not know that. I know that the Rastafarians have been recognised as a religious group. I hope that the noble Baroness is not trying to ridicule the idea of Rastafarian schools.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I shall give the House a piece of information. In the last census, I am sure with considerable levity, a large number of our fellow citizens responded to the question about their faith by saying that they were Jedi. That is a fact. I do not necessarily approve of it and clearly they were joking, but that is what they said.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for taking such an interest in this debate. I am only sorry that he does not see the amendment proposed by myself and the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Sutherland, Lord Ahmed and Lord Adonis, as a direct alternative to his amendment. The noble Lord's amendment would drive a coach and horses through the principles of schools' freedoms and of parental choice, which we have supported so strongly throughout this Bill. The real effects of a quota would be to prevent the establishment of faith schools where not enough children of other faiths applied or, conversely, to force the attendance at those schools of children who had deliberately not applied. That is, perhaps unintentionally, social engineering at its very worst. A quota could prevent parents from educating children according to their religion or from educating their children outside religion, a right enshrined in Article 2 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and a right respected and enforced since the Education Act of 1944.
	We wholeheartedly support inclusion, the inclusion of faith schools in the state system, and we hope that more will join the maintained sector, as independent state schools that follow the national curriculum and inspection regime like other schools. I wish that my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking could reconsider his amendment in the light of the earlier debate and that he could accept that greater practice of community cohesion in schools of all types is a far better way forward than pursuing a top-down quota solution with no consultation. The hour is very late. It has been an amazing and interesting debate, but I would say this—I hope that all the noble Lords who have spoken will do the House the courtesy of remaining to hear the debates on the rest of the amendments tonight.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, on Report I undertook that the Government would consult on this issue before Third Reading. Having done so, the Government have concluded that the best and most effective way of promoting community cohesion is to lay a new duty to promote community cohesion on the governing bodies of all maintained schools in England—all Christian faith schools, all Muslim faith schools, all Sikh schools, Jewish schools and Hindu schools, and not just faith schools or new faith schools, but all schools. These issues of cohesion and the promotion of relationships between different parts of the community affect all schools, whether in Oldham or Orpington, Bradford or Birmingham. The Government have also agreed with Ofsted that there should be an effective inspection regime to back up this new duty to promote community cohesion. The House has now agreed the amendments to give effect to these new duties on schools and on Ofsted. We have debated them at length and I do not want to repeat what was said.
	However, on the issue of admissions raised in this amendment, absolutist positions have been stated. On one side there are those who believe that it is fundamentally wrong for faith schools to have admissions policies that make it possible for others to join such schools at all. That view has been put to me in the past week by some senior religious leaders. On the other side there are those who want to require all schools to recruit beyond their faith as a matter of principle. The Government have consistently rejected both absolutist positions and, indeed, so have most of the faith leaders whom we have consulted in the past week.
	As a matter of fact, at least some faith schools of all faiths and of all denominations offer places beyond their immediate faith communities, not least Catholic schools, a third of whose pupils nationwide comes from beyond the Catholic community. I should add that Catholic education takes pride in that fact, as part of its wider service to the nation, particularly in disadvantaged areas. The Government have made it clear that we welcome such outreach and have therefore welcomed the voluntary statement of the Catholic Church that, in planning any new schools, it will take account of community demand beyond the immediate Catholic community in agreeing the size and admissions policies of its schools. Other faith communities are taking a similar approach. But, after the consultation that we have undertaken, we accept that this should come about with the agreement, case by case, of the faith community in question. We accept too that there may be valid reasons why such admissions arrangements are not appropriate—either to do with local exigencies or to do with principle in particular cases—although I should stress that it is the existing law that no faith school may leave places empty where it is undersubscribed and where others beyond the faith community wish to attend the school.
	We have therefore decided that it is not appropriate to introduce new statutory regulation in this area. We intend to make it clear in the new school admissions code that while it may be good practice for a new faith school to open up places to non-faith applicants this must be a voluntary decision, and that any such modification of a proposal for a new faith school within the maintained system must not be imposed on the promoters either by the local authority or by the schools adjudicator. The Government, therefore, oppose the amendment.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he agree about the impact of the Human Rights Act creating a general duty not to discriminate on state maintained schools?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I agree with the general duty, but I will need to take advice on the whole chain of reasoning which the noble Lord set out earlier before I can comment in full.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am particularly interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, because, to the extent that I understood him, if he is correct in his interpretation of the Human Rights Act, all new faith schools will be illegal and, indeed, there will be considerable doubt about existing faith schools. Whether or not that is good news or stands up legally, I do not know, but it certainly adds a whole new light to the issue. The Minister said that he will look at the situation. I would very much like him to let us know what the position is. It is a fundamental change much more radical than anything I am suggesting.
	There have been two threads of comment, hostility or opposition to what I have said. First, it was said that this is unworkable; that quotas will not work. I am not a quota man. I always think Liberal education policy is something of an enigma enveloped in a fog, but the noble Baroness who speaks for the Liberal Democrats said that the proposed is unworkable. She should come with me to Northern Ireland in a fortnight's time; I am going with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We are going to see 53 schools that work on a quota—40 per cent Catholic, 40 per cent Protestant and 20 per cent other. How do you think Northern Ireland has managed to get it right? Northern Ireland gets so much wrong, but how do you think it managed to get that right when it is unworkable? Of course it is workable if there is a will to make it work.
	I know the system that I am proposing is not perfect. I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I looked upon him as an ally. On Friday morning of last week, after the Government withdrew their amendments, I had to draw up these amendments but I did not have his advice. I wish I had because I would have made them better and workable. The Government have that opportunity and have perfect amendments drafted by the Bill team. I spoke to the Bill team but, unfortunately, it did not send the amendments to me. I would have tabled those if it had. I am quite sure that if I had tabled those amendments, all the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, mentioned would have been resolved. It is not a question of wording but a question of intent. Does the noble Lord want to see integrated education in our country or not? The noble Lord did not express his views on that so I do not know what they are, but I want to see integrated education in our country.
	The second point was that the previous amendment does all the work. We debated it earlier and I supported it, but it is carrying too large a weight. You cannot expect the inspectors in our schools to by themselves create community cohesion: it is asking too much of them. The Government have got to do something. I think that the voluntary undertakings they have got will not really work.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, a very old friend, who is not going to support me tonight. But he is not going to vote with the Government—we ex-Home Secretaries must stick together. But if either of us held that post today, there would be thudding on our desk every week reports about a lack of social cohesion in our inner cities. The reports would say all the time that you must not allow societies to develop that are parallel and separate. That is what distinctive faith schools will do; it is an inevitable result. All the advice goes that way from the Cantle report in 2001.
	I think it is very disappointing that only one Member from an Asian community has spoken in the debate today. I have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that we must not push Muslims into the corner. But there are Muslim Members of this House and this is a debate about the Muslim faith in our country today. If they want to share their views and communicate, they have some responsibility to try to do so. We cannot debate this matter by ourselves.
	Finally, I say to the right reverend Prelates—the bishops of my dear old Anglican Church—that when I was Education Secretary and I had to deal with the bishops of the Church of England and the bishops of the Church of Rome, I discovered why bishops move diagonally. I am quite sure that if these amendments had been tabled by the Government as they intended to do a week ago—beautifully drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and perfect in their execution but saying exactly what my amendments do—those on the Bishops' Bench would be voting for them.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, the noble Lord obviously has a prescience that is misplaced. We would have voted the other way.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I am afraid that we will never know. But the Anglican Church has the right solution—it believes in integrated education, it has stumbled upon the truth and it has picked itself up as if nothing has happened. If it really believed in that truth it could say that other faiths ought to follow. I sometimes believe that if some of those currently sitting on the Bishops' Bench had been living in the 17th century they might just have missed out on the Reformation.
	This is an interesting and important debate. It is not just about what is being taught in faith schools around the country—it is the shape of our society in our inner cities for the next 20 years. My position and that of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, are very clear but his amendment is not strongly enough behind integration—I am after children working, playing and studying together. Imperfect as it may be, it is workable and it is a correct and desirable aim. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment(No. 12) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 119.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Moser: moved Amendment No. 13:
	After Clause 55, insert the following new clause-
	"CHARGES FOR MUSIC TUITION
	(1) In section 451 of EA 1996 (prohibition of charges for provision of education) for subsection (3) substitute-
	"(3) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which subsection (2) does not apply in relation to tuition in singing or in playing a musical instrument."
	(2) In section 456 of EA 1996 (regulation of permitted charges), in subsection (6), after "tuition in" insert "singing or in"."

Lord Moser: My Lords, it has been suggested to me that, as we have had a long day, it would be better if I sang this amendment. Unfortunately, I do not have a singing voice. I can play the piano, but there is not one in the Chamber. I am stuck with words.
	Amendment No. 13, with the subsequent conditions and consequences in Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, is very simple, with a crucial aim of giving more of our children opportunities for music education in schools. To achieve this, the amendment will simply remove some anomalies in present legislation which hamper progress in that direction. I have listened to a lot of the debate on other matters, with particular interest in subject matters like languages and science, so I am pleased that, late in the day, the arts join the club of contents discussed.
	Your Lordships do not need reminding of the special importance of the arts, not least for children. Some of your Lordships may be old enough, as I am, to remember Jennie Lee, the first Wilson Government Arts Minister. She put all this so well when she said:
	"If children at an early age become accustomed to the arts as part of everyday life, they are more likely in maturity first to accept the arts and then to demand them".
	That is what I am talking about.
	My own luck was that, in my early days in Berlin, music was totally central both at home and at school. When I came to school in England, within two days I was in the school choir singing in "Dido and Aeneas". Since then, I can honestly say that no day in my life has been without the enrichment of music, whether listening, playing or learning and/or working in music organisations and on projects which might widen musical experience for the young. Such a one—and I declare an interest as chairman of the project—is the Paul Hamlyn Foundation's Musical Futures. The project focuses on secondary education and on innovating approaches to the teaching and learning of all kinds of music. I believe it will have an exciting and imaginative influence on engaging more 11 to 19 year-olds in music activities.
	The music manifestodocument, which has just been published—hence this amendment—shows a wide range of activities up and down the country, demonstrating how much is going on in music education. The champion of the music manifesto is Marc Jaffrey. He pays tribute to all the progress in the country's music activities, but he also does not shirk, nor does the department, the major challenges that remain or, above all, the fact that many children do not have the access they deserve to pursue their music, whether on instruments or in singing. That is where this amendment can help positively. Current legislation is actually in the way.
	I must make clear that I am not talking about music in the national curriculum, which covers children from five to 14—at which point, sad to relate, all but 7 per cent of children drop music altogether. The amendment refers to the many children who, early on, notably in primary school, develop enthusiasm for any kind of music and want to go on with tuition with a specialist teacher provided through the music services. That has to be paid for so that the providers, the specialist teachers, can be properly financed.
	That is where present legislation gets in the way. Amazingly enough, instrumental tuition in groups of over four pupils, or any vocal tuition, cannot be charged for. That is a strict anomaly. As regards instruments, it often makes more sense to teach in larger groups than four. As for singing, it is necessary to teach in whatever groups make most sense for the children and for the music. The amendment would remove that confusing anomaly.
	I should make it clear that charges would apply only where pupils themselves, after an initial introduction to music making or singing, choose to take their learning further, beyond the statutory provision. If their family or school is prepared to pay, all is well. The regulations will stipulate that, as now, remission policies will be in place to help pupils from lower-income families with these charges.
	To summarise: this amendment would achieve freedom to charge for teaching in large instrumental groups, not just up to four, and for any vocal tuition. This would actually widen access, because the cost per pupil would go down significantly. Moreover, the other important consequence is that it would help to deal with the shortfall in specialist music teaching, which is a real threat to progress.
	To put that in a single sentence: this amendment would get rid of present anomalies and ensure that music tuition for those who wanted to go on beyond the statutory condition would be made available and charged for, whatever the size of the group, for vocal as well as for instrumental lessons. I know that many of your Lordships share my passion for the importance of music, and for making it as widely available as possible. I hope this amendment will commend itself to your Lordships, and to the Government. I beg to move.

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I need to add little to what my noble friend Lord Moser saidin commending the amendment and the two consequential amendments for your Lordships' approval.
	I have not been able to discover why the Education Act 1996 restricted to groups of not more than four those who could receive instrumental tuition subject to charges and why vocal tuition was completely excluded. The amendment would allow the department to make regulations that removed those restrictions, subject to any necessary safeguards. As my noble friend said, that would enable more children to enjoy the opportunity of individual instrumental or vocal tuition from individual teachers if they had the aptitude and ambition to do so. The more children that there were in a group, the less would be the charge for each of them. The remission scheme would help too.
	It would be splendid if schools were able to provide that tuition without charges, but I recognise that the time for that is not yet. I hope that the House will welcome the amendment, which will enable more children to elect to have special tuition from individual and well qualified teachers.
	To my great regret, I have never learnt to play an instrument, other than the piano—I cannot match my noble friend Lord Moser in that—but I have never ceased to sing and have received intense pleasure from doing so. So I particularly welcome the fact that the amendment will enable pupils who seek vocal tuition to enjoy the same opportunities as those who seek instrumental tuition.
	The great composer William Byrd, who wrote such marvellous music for voices, said:
	"Since singing is so good a thing, I wish all men would learn to sing".
	He would have welcomed the amendment, as I hope your Lordships will. Its passing would bring his wish nearer to fulfilment.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moser, for three reasons. I discovered this evening that he and I share a love of Henry Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas", which was influential in my musical instruction. Whatever the form of music, we know that it offers a different route for many young people to acquire education, culture and an inquiring mind much beyond other parts of the curriculum. I would support the amendment for that reason alone.
	I also support it because, as the noble Lords, Lord Moser and Lord Armstrong, have identified, there is the anomaly that singing was excluded from the Act passed 20 or 30 years ago and that instruction to more than four pupils is likewise forbidden under the current system. Goodness knows what Dave Brubeck's "Take Five" would have done in terms of musical innovation if that principle had been a precedent by which the law and the issue of support for music was established.
	My third reason for supporting the amendment is that, although I was anxious, as others in the House may be, that we might undermine the principleof providing free musical education for our schoolchildren, I am convinced that, if we accept the amendment, that would not be the case, because it refers to specialist education and removes the current anomaly borne of 30 year-old legislation. I am convinced also by those who are interested, particularly as regards the Music Manifesto, that the amendment would broaden the opportunity for young people to have musical experience in schools and, I hope, move on to other educational experiences, because they would be able to enjoy, understand and reach out to their fellow human beings through the instrument of music.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment and will add only one other argument to the many that have been deployed. I regard the narrowing down of the opportunity for musical education as a real disaster. Music is an essential part of education.
	My additional point is that music is an astonishing instrument of cohesion. We have been talking a great deal about social and community cohesion. Whether it is the steel band in areas with large Caribbean populations or the brass band in many cities in the north of England, music has found its way into all kinds of societies and, in doing so, has enriched people's relationships and their capacity to communicate with others.
	I am speaking not only about fine classical music, although that is terribly important, but about the more indigenous forms of culture, which can provide society with extreme riches. I advocate the amendment and hope that one day we can get back to the peripatetic music teacher and free music tuition, because music is one of the great instruments in bringing cultures, peoples and races together.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we, too, support the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said, the 1996 Act is slightly counter-intuitive, particularly in relation to singing, in that it restricts charging for groups of more than four students. That is somewhat odd, and I do not understand the logic behind it.
	We have three slight provisos, which perhaps the Minister will address. First, the noble Lord, Lord Moser, stated that there would be provision for those who were not able to afford the tuition. There will be talented youngsters whose parents will find it difficult to pay for extra tuition. Although the larger the group, the smaller the charge for each individual, nevertheless, those charges can be sufficiently large. If you have two or three children, even a charge of £3 or £4 amounts to quite a lot, and many families would find it difficult to pay such sums. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what provisions will be in force in that regard.
	Secondly, we accept that the amendment relates to what one might call intermediate tuition for those who show some talent and need to go a bit further. If they are really talented, they need to progress further, and, with some instruments, there is a limit to the value of group tuition. The piano is one such example. Can the Minister also tell us a little about provision for individual tuition for the really talented students who might progress through the scheme?
	Lastly, as well as access to tuition, it is important to have access to instruments. Parents sometimes have difficulty affording the hire of instruments. Therefore, can the Minister also tell us what provision will be made to help the children of such parents get access to instruments?

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I support the amendment. I find that, wherever there is good music in a school, it is invariably a good school.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I have pleasure in supporting the amendment and have added my name to those of the noble Lords, Lord Moser, Lord Armstrong and Lord Harrison. Music is for making together. I remember that many years ago I enjoyed singing in school in wonderful things called "Singing Together" sessions. I also enjoyed recorder and clarinet lessons. Many people have very good memories of the pleasure gained from learning to play instruments and from singing together in schools, as extracurricular opportunities provided in those days.
	The amendment would afford pupils wider access in learning instruments and singing. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, that I happen to know that there are cupboards in schools all over the country full of musical instruments that are not being played at the moment. There would be plenty of opportunities for pupils to use those instruments if only teachers could be provided for on the basis set out by the amendment. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moser, the cost per pupil would diminish.
	It is also important to remember that the amendment deals with the shortfall in specialist music teaching. There are some amazing people out there who are passionate about this subject, but they have to live. We have to support them, and we have to support the opportunities that exist for our children, who have been short-changed by this crazy anomaly. The amendment is to be welcomed, and I thoroughly support it.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, while I had the privilege of being the master of a Cambridge college, one of the greatest pleasures in any year was the freshers' concert, which would take place during the first couple of weeks in October. New students at Cambridge, who had come from their schools—be they state schools or whatever—often amazed me and my colleagues with their skill and dedication. They were not students of music, but they played music with amazing effectiveness. There is a remarkable vitality in the musical life of this country, as manifested in those young people, and it must be encouraged in every way. I know that constraints exist, as we have heard, so I warmly support the amendment. It is very important for the musical life of the country, and I hope that it will be well received.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the Government welcome the amendments for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Moser, and others set out, and we are glad that such a broad consensus of support for them has been expressed this evening.
	The current legislation, contained in the Education Act 1996, allows charges to be made for instrumental tuition during the school day only for groups of up to four children. No charges can be made for any vocal tuition during the school day. We regard those as unjustified restrictions that are holding back music education in our schools. It is the Government's aim that, in time, all primary school children should, if they choose to, have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument. We also believe in the importance of singing, including the teaching of singing by specialist teachers in small groups or one-to-one. The Government have substantially increased resources for music education in schools in recent years, particularly in primary schools, including a new£2 million national scheme to provide musical instruments to music education services—the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked me about that.
	We have been told time and again, most recently in the music manifesto report, that one of the barriers to making the instrumental tuition pledge a reality and to increasing the opportunities for every child to sing is the current charging legislation. Restricting instrumental group sizes to four means that, with the specialist teaching staff who are available or who are likely to be available in the foreseeable future, there is simply not enough capacity to provide specialist tuition for all the children who might want to learn. Also, with groups restricted to just four, the price per head for lessons is sometimes prohibitive for parents with limited means. The demand for specialist singing has increased, but those who want to provide that tuition are hampered by the fact that lessons during school hours cannot be charged for, as they can for musical instruments.
	The regulation-making power proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moser, would allow us to consult thoroughly on the best solutions for instrumental and vocal tuition. It is vital that no child who is currently receiving specialist tuition is disadvantaged by the introduction of new charging structures. In our consultation on the regulations, we will propose also that schools and music services be required to retain or establish remission policies so that disadvantaged families will be able to access instrumental or vocal tuition. That meets the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We will also ensure that there is no question of charges being made for tuition that is part of music teaching in the national curriculum.
	On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House. I am glad to accept them on behalf of the Government.

Lord Moser: I simply express my thanks to noble Lords who have spoken, all of them in support of the amendment—I am very pleased about that. I thank also the Minister for his response. He is enthusiastically involved in the music manifesto, which is good news for all of us. I am sure that we look forward to seeing the revised regulations when they appear in due course. This is extremely good news for young people who are enthusiastic about music.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 14:
	After Clause 91, insert the following new clause-
	"ANONYMITY OF STAFF FACING ALLEGATIONS
	(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing that where it is alleged that a relevant person in a school providing education for persons under 18 years of age has committed a criminal offence against or related to a child that person shall be afforded anonymity unless and until he is charged with an offence.
	(2) For the purposes of this section "anonymity" constitutes a restriction on including in a publication a reference to the person against whom the allegation is made if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify him as a person involved in the alleged offence.
	(3) Regulations made under this section may provide exemptions from a requirement to afford anonymity to a person on the application of a Chief Constable to a magistrates' court where it is-
	(a) necessary to prevent a person committing an offence or fleeing after having done so, or (b) necessary to ensure the effective conduct of a criminal investigation.
	(4) In this section a relevant person is a teacher or other member of staff in a school, including a volunteer.
	(5) Regulations shall not be made under this section unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am pleased to have an opportunity to return once again to this debate. I was interested to hear the words of the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on this topic on Report and I reserved my right to take those new perspectives into account in order to return with a solution at Third Reading.
	Allegations of abuse are matters that deserve sensitive treatment. Children's well-being is the most precious thing to any parent and that is why I am so thankful that we have a workforce of teachers and school staff who seek to improve not only their well-being but also their chances in life. That is why I persist in this matter. Teachers and school staff give their lives to educating our children and it is our duty to ensure that they get a fair deal. It is not a fair deal when, out of 2,210 accusations of physical or sexual abuse in the past 15 years, fewer than 4 per cent—88—led to convictions, or when most of the10 per cent who face charges result in acquittals. It is also not a fair deal when, in one year, 100 members of NASUWT were exposed to accusations only for it to be confirmed that, after all, there was no case to answer.
	Anonymity appears in a wide variety of legislation. Its most well known uses are 4 per cent for victims of rape and for children under the age of 18 involved in investigations. Yet it also appears in various guises in the Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) Act 1982 and in giving anonymity to alleged terrorists under control orders in the Prevention of Terrorism Act last year. It is amazing that, under Section 6 of that Act, suspected terrorists who are subject to control orders have a right to anonymity but teachers do not. The use of anonymity for alleged terrorists is clear evidence that anonymity is necessary in certain cases. The Government were so aware of the detrimental effects on trial of overexposure in the media that suspected terrorists are given identity protection. I think most of us would agree that child abuse and terrorism are two of the greatest evils in our society and being accused of one would be as damaging as being accused of the other. While the Minister expresses his concerns that anonymity has no place in legislation, I direct him to the strong precedent in the statute books.
	On this issue, as on others that we have debated tonight, as far as possible we have sought to achieve consensus. This new amendment takes into account the concerns of noble Lords on all Benches and the concerns of unions and charities, including the NSPCC, the NUT and the NASUWT. The amendment applies only to allegations of criminal offences. That would protect teachers and school staff who have to wait the longest for a charge to be brought or dropped. The Minister acknowledged that three months would be the minimum wait for accusations of criminal offences, even under the new guidelines. The amendment answers the concerns of the NUT by defining anonymity. There are two characteristics: it lasts only until a charge has been brought and it relates only to reporting restrictions. In our view the preservation of a possibly innocent reputation is more important than the provision of sensationalist copy to the local press. Given a choice between so-called press freedom and the protection of an innocent person's livelihood, I know which one I would choose.
	A further significant change in the amendment is the process for exemptions from anonymity. After legal consultation, it has been possible to alter the amendment. Under the provisions of the amendment, to achieve an exemption, a chief constable could apply to a magistrates' court to waive anonymity where it would be expedient to the carrying out of a criminal investigation or in the interests of security. That would be done in much the same way as an application for a search warrant. That takes the exemption procedure out of the hands of the Secretary of State and reroutes it through a tried and tested system. Just as a search warrant allows the investigation of premises, so a warrant to waive anonymity allows the public investigation of a person's identity.
	I understand the concerns of noble Lords that providing anonymity for teachers and school staff could establish a two-tier system, yet I resist that objection on three counts. First, the point that protection from media exposure which could wreck careers and lives would not extend to one group of people does not constitute a principled objection that it should be provided to another group. Secondly, while we would be very interested to consider providing anonymity for carers and others who face malicious and vexatious accusations, such an amendment would be outside the scope of the Bill. Our business here this evening is education and ensuring the quality of life within the education system as a teacher or member of school staff. Perhaps a future social care Bill will provide an opportunity for provision for social workers.
	Thirdly, accusation is an easy route to manipulation. Let us not forget that false allegations are made not just by children but by other adults. Indeed, I know personally of such a case it was horrendous. We must not forget also that often these cases arise due to misunderstood circumstances where the comment of a pupil has aroused the suspicion of an adult and to be on the safe side an allegation is made. It is right that children retain anonymity. That is something I would defend to the last. However, we believe that the amendment provides a necessary safeguard that could provide 100 per cent protection from trial by media if the unproved guidance does not work.
	These cases are so sensitive. They stand to affect the life of a child and that child's family, but also the lives of schools, staff and their families in turn. I do not for one minute suggest that we should not listen to accusations and treat every single one with 100 per cent seriousness, but I suggest that there is another side to the story, that instead of the dramatic sensationalist coverage and exposure of allegations of abuse, those cases should be treated with care, sincerity and privacy. We are pleased that there is guidance there and like the Government hope for the success of the guidance in reducing vexatious or malicious allegations. However—and this is important—our amendment does not force the Government to take action now. It is an enabling power that would give the Government the opportunity to give teachers the right to anonymity should the guidance prove insufficient. We see it as a safeguard. I think that that is a sensible amendment and I hope that noble Lords will support it. I beg to move.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I was involved in the creation of a group called FACT—Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers—not long after the major investigations that took place, first, in north Wales over children's authorities and allegations of abuse of children in those authorities and, secondly, in the major Merseyside study of schools and of children's homes shortly afterwards. Those were extensive inquiries and many dozens of people were involved in allegations that were made about them in one way or another. Undoubtedly some of those allegations held up.
	The fact that the police chose a method effectively seeking to obtain evidence from people who attended those care homes or those schools—which was known in the trade as cruising for crime—led to a number of people coming forward from those institutions in order to make allegations, not discouraged by the fact that it was widely known that there was a possibility of substantial compensation being paid to someone who had suffered from abuse. In other words, there was a true motivation for some fairly unsavoury characters coming forward to make such allegations. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that we are talking not only about the wrecking of the lives of certain teachers who turn out to be completely innocent but also about the shadow that is cast by the very fact that they are named even though they may be later found to be innocent, shadows that to my certain knowledge—I can give a number of cases about which I happen to know first hand from the association—led to people being unable to find appointments and stay in their positions, even though it turned out that there were absolutely no grounds for the allegations made against them.
	I have not followed in detail what the legal difficulties may be here. I am sure that there are some, there are almost always legal difficulties about virtually any amendment that anyone moves, but I believe that this is a serious issue. It is one where we need to protect the good names of teachers until a decision is made about whether criminal proceedings should be brought. I am being as brief as I can because of the hour. I would like to say that this is an extremely serious matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has addressed it powerfully and I hope that the Minister will give it whatever consideration he can to try to protect innocent teachers against whom allegations are made on which there are no grounds at all.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, for the reasons that I gave at Report, which have been so cogently underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I continue to support the amendment in its new and, I believe, improved form.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I also support the amendment. It is now drafted in a way that should be acceptable to the Minister. It is the time that these cases take and the destruction that can so often result to people's lives that really concerns me—especially when they are teachers, but also when they are other members of the school. So I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the concept. If he is right and the guidance is satisfactory, there will be no need for any further action, but the provision could be there in the background as a safeguard.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I make a two sentence support of the amendment. We speak often in this House about the rights of the child. We should also be cognisant of the rights of the teacher.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, the words of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby show to the House how warmly we support the objective of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and how much we pay tribute to her for the tenacious way in which she has addressed the matter and how she has tried to address the various concerns expressed in your Lordships' House. In particular, I am grateful to her for how she has addressed some of the concerns that I have expressed.
	We owe the noble Baroness a great debt of gratitude because the way in which she has raised this issue to the public eye has put a great deal of pressure on the media—those who have any tendency to be irresponsible. We all agree that none of us wants the child's rights to be counterbalanced with the right of an innocent person not to be vilified in the media. It is the responsibility of any of us, if we see the media being irresponsible in how they address such matters, to write to them or to speak on the media in abhorrence of such behaviour—or to withdraw our support from newspapers. Such behaviour is simply not on.
	However, the noble Baroness has not addressed just one of our concerns in tabling the amendment. That is the fact that we feel that now is not the moment to put the provision on the statute book. We have a new set of measures introduced by Jim Knight; we have some new allegations management officers put in place; we have new guidance. I would be right behind the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, if, in a year's time, we find that those measures have had no effect and we come back to the Government to hold them to account for that but, in fairness, we have to give them a chance. Therefore, I shall not support the amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I urge her to appreciate that this is an enabling provision. If all the guidance that the Government produce works, the provision will not need to be brought into play. It is simply a back-stop, a safeguard, so that if, in a year's time, it is shown that what the Government have put in place has not worked, we can turn to the provision for which I am asking tonight, because it will be there in primary legislation.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, if that was an intervention, perhaps I can ask the Minister whether he will tell us how long he will give the measures before they are evaluated. What will he do if there is evidence that they are not working? Will the Government come back at that point with more serious measures?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I appreciate the concerns that have given rise to the amendment. There have been discussions on the issue all the way through the progress of the Bill, both in another place and in your Lordships' House, including a meeting that my honourable friend Jim Knight held with the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Walmsley, along with Members of another place and representatives from the NSPCC and the NASUWT, to discuss the issue further.
	As I say, we appreciate the concerns to protect teachers and other members of school staff from the damaging effects of allegations and the work that the noble Baroness has done to develop and refine this amendment during the course of the Bill. But we must also keep in mind the vital importance of safeguarding children from abuse wherever they are, and ensuring that children are encouraged to speak out about abuse they have suffered. We want all children to be confident in the knowledge that their concerns will be taken seriously and responded to. It is getting the balance right which is uppermost on our minds in this very delicate area.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, we have taken significant steps to meet concerns in this area. We issued new guidance on allegations in educational settings only last November. The guidance was issued under Section 175 of the Education Act 2002, which means that schools have to have regard to it when making arrangements to safeguard and to promote the welfare of children. The guidance states that every effort should be made to maintain confidentiality and guard against unwanted publicity while an allegation is being investigated, unless and until a person is charged with an offence. It also makes clear that in exceptional circumstances, the police may need to disclose the identity of a person under investigation.
	We also issued further overarching guidance on allegations against anyone working with children in any setting in the revised version of Working Together to Safeguard Children. This was issued only this April in England and came into force only at the start of this month. As I explained on Report, that guidance aims to ensure that allegations are dealt with consistently, and that issues are resolved as quickly as possible because time is the big problem in this area and it gives rise to so much of the concern on the part of the teachers' associations. The Working Together guidance that I have just referred to, and which has only just come into force, provides target timescales for each step in the process and sets an overall expectation that 80 per cent of cases should be resolved within one month, 90 per cent within three months, and all but the most exceptional cases should be completed within 12 months. The proposed regulations would not, we believe, help to speed up the handling of cases.
	Furthermore, in April we also put in place a network of allegation management advisers based in government offices. They are working with the new local safeguarding children boards and their members to ensure that effective arrangements are in place for dealing with allegations of abuse against people who work with children, implementing the new guidance on allegations against teachers and the guidance I just mentioned, Working Together to Safeguard Children.
	Part of the allegation management advisers' work is to help organisations avoid allegations arising in the first place through safe recruitment processes and through advice on staff behaviour when working with children. The allegation management advisers are also helping local safeguarding children boards and organisations to develop and implement effective arrangements for collecting data on allegations.
	All these measures I have set out have recently been put in place. We believe that they will help to achieve the right balance between protecting teachers and others from the damaging effect of false or unfounded allegations while, on the other hand, safeguarding children. Our strong preference is not to legislate on this matter but to focus our energies on making sure that these new arrangements are working well.
	In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I can tell the House that we have undertaken to review the impact of the guidance for the education sector in 2007 with the involvement of all stakeholders, and to reconsider in the light of that review what further measures may be necessary, which may include further measures in respect of protecting the anonymity of teachers. But although we have worked through the many options in this area, I do not have an option I can bring to the House and I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to recommend the House to legislate for a general enabling power when the Government cannot tell the House how they would propose to implement it.
	We have, however, undertaken to consult further next year and my officials will be discussing the timetable for this further work with the teachers' associations, including the NASUWT which has raised the most consistent concerns in this area. The NASUWT has said today that it supports our approach, that it wishes to continue to be involved in this important work and it would not support an amendment being passed without a clear view of how the Government might implement it.
	I hope that on the basis of the assurances I have been able to give, the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press this amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I find the Minister's response incredibly depressing. As I have said twice this evening, this enabling power would give the Government the opportunity to give teachers the right to anonymity should the guidance prove insufficient. It is merely a safeguard, but it would be there for teachers if only the Minister would accept it tonight. I find it incredible that it is deemed okay for terrorists to have anonymity but not for teachers. The Minister said that we would have to wait for the results of the consultation next year, but he consulted on faith schools in one week.
	I accept that the noble Lord is working towards having allegations dealt with as quickly as possible, but it takes no time at all to ruin a person's life once information gets into the hands of the newspapers. And will the newspapers take any notice of the guidance? Of course they won't.
	The Minister said that the police may need to waive the right to anonymity. We have worked hard at this amendment to allow for that possibility, so that in certain circumstances the police can waive the right to anonymity. I feel extremely strongly about this. It is right that we should stand up for teachers; they matter an awful lot more than the terrorists in this country. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment(No. 14) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 76.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 92 [Power of members of staff to use force]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 74, line 42, at end insert-
	"( ) The Secretary of State shall issue, and may from time to time revise, statutory guidance containing guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters, and such practical guidance as he thinks appropriate, in respect of the discharge by persons to whom this section applies of their functions under this section."

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, this amendment requests the sort of statutory guidance which the Government have recently put in place to address the important issue we have just been debating, but in this case it concerns training for teachers on the appropriate use of physical restraint, and in particular on children with physical or mental difficulties. We have been advised by the charity TreeHouse, the Advisory Centre for Education and the National Autistic Society.
	The Minister has stated that he is content with the current position and he has repeatedly assured us that the DfES is not aware that the current powers have caused any difficulties since 1998. However, the charities that have briefed us can all point to examples where school staff have made inappropriate physical interventions with no training and with serious consequences for pupils and adults. A couple of weeks ago a special report by Channel 4 News showed a case involving a six year-old girl with autism and other communication conditions which highlighted the lack of training on appropriate handling methods and proper post-incident procedures in a mainstream primary school. The six year-old girl was restrained firmly on several occasions. The girl's treatment at school came to the attention of her parents only when she came home with ripped clothing. The parents requested a full incident log and found that their daughter had been held repeatedly, removed from classrooms and the toilet, and that staff had not received or requested training until the situation became known to the parents. No incident had been reported to the parents. A joint investigation by the police and the local authority found serious procedural errors in the school, which had no policy on physical interventions. The department has conceded that it does not collect data on the number of incidents involving pupils with SEN, but as the Channel 4 News investigation found from research it commissioned, many mainstream schools have been "unaffected" by the non-statutory guidance.
	What is the basis for the Minister's assertion that the DfES is not aware that the current powers have caused difficulties, given the lack of monitoring and data collection? How can he say that when he does not really know? A DfES audit of allegations against teachers and other staff in the education service for September 2003-04 found that the largest number of allegations against staff arose from inappropriate physical handling in a mainstream secondary setting. A report by the National Foundation for Educational Research supports the argument that mainstream staff need to be better equipped to manage the challenging behaviours they are increasingly facing today. The report makes it clear that special schools, for which there is good guidance that is well known to them, have the highest frequency of incidents but the least likelihood of a complaint arising. It is pretty obvious why; their staff have proper training. Equally, the report goes on to note that mainstream schools have the fewest incidents but the highest number of complaints. They do not have proper training and they are not all aware of the non-statutory guidance. Plainly, behind this research and these case studies there is a very high human and financial cost of inappropriate interventions, in terms of exclusions, police time, physical injury, anxiety and the possible need for alternative, out-of-county placements.
	This issue is too important to be left to chance, by placing documents on the Teachernet website and leaving schools to carry out their own risk assessments. We believe that statutory guidance will ensure that all schools prioritise this issue when they come to consider their whole school behaviour and their inclusion and disability discrimination policies. This is the best way of ensuring that we achieve a more proactive, preventive and constructive approach across all schools. The Bill gives a clear statement of the rights of all members of the school's work force to use force where appropriate and necessary. We believe that there should be a countervailing responsibility on all schools—especially mainstream schools, where most children, with autism, for example, are educated—to train their staff effectively, so that they are as aware and as skilled as many staff in special schools are in how to deal appropriately with these situations. I beg to move.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, since Report I have written to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on Clause 92 and the issues of concern to her. In my letter, I said that the department already issues three pieces of guidance on the use of force, two of which are aimed at special schools and persons who work with pupils with severe special educational needs and one, Circular 10/98, for mainstream schools.
	Circular 10/98 provides schools with clear, detailed and practical advice on all the key issues that they will need to consider in making use of this power. In particular, the guidance gives examples of circumstances in which physical intervention might be appropriate, factors that staff should bear in mind when deciding whether to intervene and the kinds of physical intervention that might or might not be appropriate. It also discusses the meaning of "reasonable force" and advises that schools should have a policy about the use of reasonable force and that they should tell parents about it. It further advises that schools should record incidents in which any force, other than trivial or minor force, is used and tell parents of any such incidents involving their child. The issue of ensuring that school staff understand this properly, about which the noble Baroness has indicated particular concern, is also specifically addressed in this guidance:
	"The Head teacher should draw up a policy setting out guidelines about the use of force to control or restrain pupils, and discuss these with the staff who may have to apply them, and with the Governing Body of the school".
	The guidance goes on to advise how, in planning for possible incidents, schools need to consider;
	"briefing staff to ensure they know exactly what action they should be taking (this may identify a need for training or guidance)".
	I should emphasise that this does not mean that all staff will necessarily need training, or that any training needs identified for individual staff members will be the same as for other staff, but there is a helpful prompt in this part of the guidance for senior school management to consider what if any training needs there might be for individual staff members in the light of their experience, particular responsibilities and so on.
	We therefore believe that this guidance, to which schools have had access for many years, addresses exactly the kinds of concerns to which the noble Baroness has drawn attention. The reissue of the guidance will help remind schools of its existence and will provide an opportunity to ensure that it is fully up to date and covers those points that in earlier debates I have specifically undertaken to ensure are included. The revised guidance will be issued to coincide with the commencement of Clause 92, after consultation with key stakeholders.
	Given this commitment to producing guidance to support staff in exercising this power under Clause 92, we do not see the need for a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on these matters. I again emphasise that there is nothing substantially new about Clause 92. The legislation that it re-enacts has been in force for eight years. As I say, during that time the department has not seen evidence that either the legislation or the associated guidance has caused particular problems, or that inappropriate application of the power to use force is a widespread problem. This is not, of course, to say that there are not individual cases of concern—as the noble Baroness rightly said, of course there will be individual cases of concern—but we have no reason to believe that the non-statutory status of the current guidance has made staff more willing to use force or less responsible in the way they use it.
	For these reasons, with all the reassurances I have given, including the reissue of the guidance to meet current best practice, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. The circular may contain some very laudable guidance and the measure in the Bill about physical restraint may not be new, but the fact that it is being re-enacted has ensured that there has been a certain amount of press coverage, particularly in the specialist press, and discussion about this issue. That in itself may very well serve the Minister's purpose in drawing attention to the circular. Although it is not statutory, it may well have more attention paid to it.
	I very much hope that the case studies I have mentioned are one-offs and very unusual, but it is quite clear that the school to which I referred did not seem terribly aware of the guidance. I am concerned that if it is not made statutory there will be schools that do not pay attention to it and the kind of situations I have described will arise.
	I think we have cantered around this course quite long enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 100 [Duty of local education authority in relation to excluded pupils]:

Baroness Williams of Crosby: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 79, line 27, at end insert-
	"(3C) Parents of pupils whose children have been either permanently excluded or excluded for a fixed period on disciplinary grounds from relevant schools must be provided with information relating to the terms of the exclusion and where and from whom they may seek advice in relation to the exclusion, including advice outside normal office hours."

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. The amendments are interdependent and hold together. I am most grateful to the Minister for the great attention he has paid to these clauses and the attempts he has made to tell me about the steps that the Government feel able to take.
	Clause 100 effectively lays on governing bodies in the case of a fixed-term exclusion and in the case of a permanent exclusion on local authorities responsibility for providing the equivalent of full-time education for excluded children. We have no quarrel with that. Indeed, we much welcome it because it is clear that the more one can provide alternative education which is full-time and effective the better. It enables the excluded child to continue his or her education and, in the case of a fixed period of exclusion, to, we hope, go back to the mainstream school and resume their education there.
	The problem is quite straightforward. Even in the light of the great help that the Minister has extended to us for moving in these areas, it arises in the description of parents. In a letter the Minister has kindly sent me, which is addressed to the Local Government Association, a first group of parents is effectively described as those willing to take on the responsibility of caring for their child for the five days before the local authority or the governing body take over responsibility for educating the child to ensure that that child in those first five days is not in any public place during school hours. The second group of parents that the Government refer to in the clauses, and in particular in the letter to the Local Government Association, are parents who are unwilling to help in terms of taking the responsibility to care for their children during those first five days and to ensure that they are not in any public place during school hours.
	There is, however, a third group, which we on these Benches believe is the biggest group of the three. It is not parents who are able to take responsibility for the five days; it is not parents who are unwilling to do so—on both of those points we fully share the Government's position. It is a third group of parents who are simply unable to do so, because of the nature of their work, their economic situation or because of other children or elderly parents for whom they have a pressing responsibility. In the letter that I sent to the Minister, which he was gracious enough to accept and acknowledge, I said that there are a great many parents in this category—in particular, of course, a great many single parents—who simply cannot make themselves free for five days, even if they want to, without putting their jobs at risk or their other responsibilities at risk.
	I gave the Minister examples of, for instance, NHS nurses with responsibility for caring for people in hospital and teachers with responsibilities to their schools. In those cases, making a quick arrangement—a matter of hours in involved—to free themselves from those responsibilities so that they could look after their child for five days and ensure that he or she is kept out of a public place is, bluntly, an unrealistic demand to place upon them. It also carries the basis of being an offence that is finable and later might even involve a custodial sentence.
	I recognise that the Minister has gone a long way to try and meet us and I am grateful to him for that, but that final step, which recognises that if there is a good reason or justification for the parents' inability to respond, it is one that still weighs a little in the balance. We want to make sure that the parent—in this context I stress that we refer to a parent with good intentions but whose personal situations make it either difficult or almost impossible to respond in the way required—has three things. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us that these three things are now in place. The first thing they need is precise information about the terms of the exclusion—how long it is for, what conditions may be attached, whether there are any indications of the situations in which the child finds himself and so on. The first demand is the exact terms of the exclusion.
	The second requirement is that the parent knows and understands the basis of a good reason for his or her inability to respond or, crucially, to get relatives or friends to respond in his or her place. That has to be made plain; we would be grateful if the guidance could give clear examples and explain what justification might be accepted so that the parent would be most unlikely to be charged with committing an offence.
	The final requirement is that we want to ensure that parents have immediate redress if they seek to meet the requirements of the legislation, find themselves unable to do so, but want to know what they can do in the situation. We believe that in this situation the advice that can be made readily available outside office hours from the education welfare office is important. The Minister has been most helpful on that point and I am grateful to him. I would like to make sure that he now feels that the system would be able to be in place by the time that these clauses come into effect or soon afterwards, and also that he recognises that where this simply cannot be done it would be the ultimate responsibility of the local authority to ensure that the child is safeguarded if, for one reason and another, there is no ability to ensure that it does not appear in a public place for five days.
	I have one final, small question for the Minister. The guidance to the Bill indicates that for children of a certain age the parent might not need to be present to take them away from school. But if that child, on his way home from school, appears in a public place—if she or he bicycles back home after having been excluded—they are almost certain to be in a public place for at least some time. Would that constitute an offence or would it constitute grounds that would be accepted because the attempt had been made to try to maintain the requirement laid upon the parent? I beg to move.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, I have been in dialogue with her on the issues that she has raised, and I do not think that we are completely at one. I should stress that the reason that I think we are not completely at one is in part a simple issue of resources. I would like to be able to provide the overarching duties on local authorities to safeguard from the first day, but in my reply to her noble friend on Report, I set out the costs that would be associated with that and the limits to which we thought we could go at this stage in imposing new duties on local authorities, noting that of course the requirement to provide after the sixth day is itself a new duty on local authorities, involving considerable additional expenditure. Although I do not think I can go the whole way in meeting her concerns, I hope that I can at least go part of the way and explain our thinking on those other issues that she has raised.
	Amendment No. 16 would require parents to be given information about the terms of their child's exclusion and where they can get advice about it. At Report, I explained that we accept that parents will need to be properly informed about their duties under Clause 102 when their child is excluded. I undertook to ensure that the model letter my department offers head teachers to send to parents at the time of exclusion is revised to set out clearly the nature of their duty under Clause 102, the days on which that duty will apply, the consequences of failing in that duty and the availability of the defence of reasonable justification. I also undertook to include in that letter the contact number of the local authority's education welfare service, or equivalent. That would enable the parents to get further advice about the authority's approach to issuing penalty notices for this offence and for them to be signposted to different types of support, available either through the local authority or through other national or local agencies and helplines, such as the Advisory Centre for Education, to which my department provides funding.
	Following my further commitment in debate on Tuesday, I have also written to the Local Government Association about what support it can provide in this area and have sent the noble Baroness a copy of the letter. Taking up the noble Baroness's proposal, I specifically asked the Local Government Association if its members could provide a helpline service with extended hours, as suggested by the amendment. I have asked it to consider that matter formally and have said that I would be happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Lockhart, the association's president, to discuss this with him directly. It would be a sensible way forward which could offer a great deal of support to parents who are in the predicament the noble Baroness has described. I give her my undertaking that I will pursue those discussions further and report back to her on the progress I have made. In view of those measures, I do not believe that a statutory requirement in this area is necessary.
	On Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, I recognise the noble Baroness's concern about what is in some cases regarded as the impracticality of the duty on parents to ensure that their child is not present in a public place during school hours in the first five days of exclusion, particularly the burden it is felt this may place on disadvantaged parents. Amendment No. 17 would mean that a parent could request a local authority to offer a place at a pupil referral unit to an excluded pupil during the first five days of that pupil's exclusion from school if the parent had good reason for being unable to comply with their duty under Clause 102.
	We believe that in many cases it may well be appropriate for such a place to be made available and would encourage local authorities to consider what provision they can make in that area. However, to impose a duty of this kind we believe is problematic. Exclusions tend to take effect very quickly after the head teacher makes the decision, often on the next day or even on the same day as the exclusion, as soon as the notice under Clause 103 can be brought to their attention. The five days start to run from this point, but if this were to be a statutory duty, the local authority would need enough time to consider the request to which it could in any case not be required to accede to because of the parallel requirements that provision for pupils must be suitable to their particular needs. As I explained at Report, a place ata pupil referral unit may not be suitable to the particular needs of a child; often pupil referral units are very specialist places for children at high risk or with particular behavioural difficulties which may not be appropriate to the child in question.
	When it comes to the defence of reasonable justification, there is a circular argument which, despite having given a good deal of consideration to it, I am unable to resolve. The noble Baroness quite rightly says that there should be the defence of reasonable justification—which there is—and that it needs to be clear to parents that it exists. We accept that. She then wishes us to spell out those reasonable justifications. As I said when I replied to a similar amendment at Report, we do not believe it is possible to list exhaustively what reasonable justifications there might be. The presence of a school pupil in a place such as a library, a shopping centre or riding a bike on the way home, as the noble Baroness suggested, may be reasonable in some cases but not in others. If we were to set this out in formal guidance, it could provide either a misleading view of what would constitute reasonable justification in all cases or, worse still, a list of ready-made excuses which parents or pupils could use.
	I am anxious not to sound unduly negative. To meet the first points, under existing arrangements schools and local authorities can and do make provision earlier than the sixth day for exclusions. We accept that there will be cases where there are reasonable justifications for the presence of a pupil in a public place. While it is for the courts to decide what constitutes a reasonable justification, it could conceivably cover situations where it was not possible for parents to make alternative arrangements or to take time off work in the way that the noble Baroness has described.
	Taking all of those factors into account, I hope the noble Baroness will accept that we have done a good deal to meet the points that she has raised. I accept that we have not met them all, but I particularly commit myself to working further on the support services for parents, starting with the helpline. I will be in touch with her again about that.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, and I certainly will not push this matter to the point of asking the opinion of the House. I am grateful for what he has done, which is very considerable. I would simply like to leave him with the example of a parent who has reasonable justification and is recognised by the local authority as having reasonable justification. That parent cannot then alter the circumstances in which they have justified their inability to do what the Bill requires, and yet a fixed penalty of some £50 may still fall upon them. I take it that the matter would have to go to court in order for the penalty to be lifted. That is not a wholly satisfactory situation where somebody, by the very wording we have agreed, would have good reason for what they have done and would not be behaving irresponsibly.
	My only other niggle is that, in the actual language of the letter from the Minister to the Local Government Association, this third group is not recognised as being thoroughly responsible and decent parents who try to obey the law, but rather as having to fall into either the category of being irresponsible or the category of being fully responsible because they have done what the law asked them to. I repeat that there is this third category who I would not wish to see treated effectively as having behaved badly or, even worse, as if they had committed an offence. The Minister has hugely narrowed down the areas of concern that I had. This one area of concern remains. I am grateful to him for saying that he will try to give it further thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 102 [Duty of parent in relation to excluded pupil]:
	[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Before Clause 153, insert the following new clause-
	"DUTY TO REPORT ON CONTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN SCHOOLS TO COMMUNITY COHESION
	In section 5 of EA 2005 (duty to inspect certain schools in England at particular intervals), in subsection (5) (which lists matters on which the Chief Inspector is under a general duty to report)-
	(a) omit the word "and" at the end of paragraph (e), and (b) at the end insert- "(g) the contribution made by the school to community cohesion.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 168 [Prohibition on participation in management: supplementary]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 120, line 26, at end insert-
	"( ) In section 113BA of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50) (suitability information relating to children), at the end of subsection (2)
	insert-
	"(e) whether the applicant is subject to a direction under section 167A of the Education Act 2002 (prohibition on participation in management of independent school).""

Lord Adonis: My Lords, in rising to make what I calculate is my 94th speech from this Dispatch Box on this Bill, I hope that I can speak briefly. This is a technical amendment to ensure that, in prescribed cases, enhanced CRB disclosures will include information about persons subject to directions prohibiting or restricting them from taking partin the management of an independent school. In conjunction with proposed amendments to the Education (Independent School Standards) (England) Regulations 2003, this amendment will alert the registration authority to a person's unsuitability when considering the registration of independent schools. Independent schools will also have this information when they consider appointments to the management team where enhanced level CRB checks are made.
	Finally, Amendment No. 23 is a simple government amendment to rectify an omission in the drafting of this paragraph. At the moment the definition of "middle school" would not apply to ex-independent schools coming into the maintained sector. The amendment inserts a reference to Clause 11 of the Bill, which includes such schools, so that the paragraph includes all relevant schools. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 178 [Functions to be exercisable by National Assembly for Wales]:

Lord Moser: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 126, line 40, at end insert-
	"section (Charges for music tuition) (charges for music tuition);"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 187 [The appropriate authority by whom commencement order is made]:

Lord Moser: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 130, line 31, at end insert-
	"section (Charges for music tuition) (charges for music tuition);"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Amendments relating to school organisation]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 147, line 23, after "10" insert ", 11"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 18 [Repeals]:

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 11, line 6, leave out "lawful" and insert "reasonable"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Adonis.)
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

The Bill was returned from the Commons with an amendment disagreed to with a reason for such disagreement; and with the remaining amendments agreed to; it was ordered that the Commons reason be printed.
	House adjourned at five minutes before midnight.